new OO OS

[Michael Groys]

Hello all,
I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
system.
As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
the OS must move towards OO OS.
I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
So everybody is invited.
More information you can find at,

http://www.yaooos.org

Michael

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: new OO OS

"Michael Groys" <michaelg@alzt. tau.ac.il> wrote...[color=blue]
> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> system.
> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]

You must be thinking of BeOS...
[color=blue]
> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.[/color]

So apparently did the developers of BeOS...

[Michael Groys]

Re: new OO OS



Victor Bazarov wrote:[color=blue]
> "Michael Groys" <michaelg@alzt. tau.ac.il> wrote...
>[color=green]
>>I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
>>system.
>>As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
>>the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
>
>
> You must be thinking of BeOS...
>
>[color=green]
>>I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.[/color]
>
>
> So apparently did the developers of BeOS...
>
>[/color]
Two comments.
1. As I understand the initial BeOs is not alive any more.
(be site is defunct)
2. As far as I know BeOs was good operating system with OO api and may
be OO kernel (may be I'm wrong). I'm talking about the whole object
oriented distributed environment. Where the applications and USER
access objects and not files by terms of OO interface. Additional
information appears in the site ( http://www.yaooos.org ).

If you think that what I'm talking about is actually BeOs,
then let me know and I will really appreciate this.
Best regards, Michael.

[Noah Roberts]

Re: new OO OS

Michael Groys wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Michael Groys" <michaelg@alzt. tau.ac.il> wrote...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
>>> system.
>>> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
>>> the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> You must be thinking of BeOS...
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> So apparently did the developers of BeOS...
>>
>>[/color]
> Two comments.
> 1. As I understand the initial BeOs is not alive any more.
> (be site is defunct)
> 2. As far as I know BeOs was good operating system with OO api and may
> be OO kernel (may be I'm wrong). I'm talking about the whole object
> oriented distributed environment. Where the applications and USER
> access objects and not files by terms of OO interface. Additional
> information appears in the site ( http://www.yaooos.org ).
>
> If you think that what I'm talking about is actually BeOs,
> then let me know and I will really appreciate this.
> Best regards, Michael.
>[/color]

What architecture are you going with? I realize OO is part of it, but
there is more needed. Monolithic, micro, exokernel, ..., something new?

This is probably an inappropriate forum for this type of discussion.
Something about operating systems would be better. There is one like
"alt.os.researc h" or something. I am finding it interesting, but
someone is bound to complain.

--
"I can't help it, the Dominating Trolls made me."

[Michael Groys]

Re: new OO OS



Noah Roberts wrote:[color=blue]
>
> What architecture are you going with? I realize OO is part of it, but
> there is more needed. Monolithic, micro, exokernel, ..., something new?
>[/color]
Good OO design will allow to build very modular kernel that corresponds
to microkernel architecture. The "core" of the kernel will implement
only basic objects and will be responsible for redirecting calls from
caller to object owner. In this way the system can be easily extended.
[color=blue]
> This is probably an inappropriate forum for this type of discussion.
> Something about operating systems would be better. There is one like
> "alt.os.researc h" or something. I am finding it interesting, but
> someone is bound to complain.
>[/color]
I chose this forum because it deals with C++ which I plan to use as a
basic language for the system.
Michael.

[Jack Klein]

Re: new OO OS

On 1 Feb 2004 06:26:10 -0800, michaelg@alzt.t au.ac.il (Michael Groys)
wrote in comp.lang.c++:
[color=blue]
> Hello all,[/color]

Hello.
[color=blue]
> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> system.[/color]

The above is a statement that I am willing to accept at face value.
[color=blue]
> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]

The above is a statement that I am NOT be willing to accept at face
value. What proof or arguments can you offer that operating systems
"must" become object oriented?[color=blue]
> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
> So everybody is invited.
> More information you can find at,
> http://www.yaooos.org
> Michael[/color]

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

[Michael Groys]

Re: new OO OS



Jack Klein wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
>>the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
>
>
> The above is a statement that I am NOT be willing to accept at face
> value. What proof or arguments can you offer that operating systems
> "must" become object oriented?
>[/color]

My be word "must" is not so good. This is actually my vision which is
based on some assumptions and some experience both as devloper and
user under/of different operating systems.
In any case I tried to provide some arguments (I have few) in my site.
If you want to discuss them then you are very wellcome.
But I don't think that usenet is good place to present them.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
>>So everybody is invited.
>>More information you can find at,
>>http://www.yaooos.org
>>Michael[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: new OO OS

"Michael Groys" <michaelg@alzt. tau.ac.il> wrote...[color=blue]
>
>
> Jack Klein wrote:[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >>As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> >>the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
> >
> >
> > The above is a statement that I am NOT be willing to accept at face
> > value. What proof or arguments can you offer that operating systems
> > "must" become object oriented?
> >[/color]
>
> My be word "must" is not so good. This is actually my vision which is
> based on some assumptions and some experience both as devloper and
> user under/of different operating systems.
> In any case I tried to provide some arguments (I have few) in my site.
> If you want to discuss them then you are very wellcome.
> But I don't think that usenet is good place to present them.[/color]

Typical...

[Thomas Matthews]

Re: new OO OS

Michael Groys wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hello all,
> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> system.
> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> the OS must move towards OO OS.
> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
> So everybody is invited.
> More information you can find at,
> http://www.yaooos.org
> Michael[/color]

Search the web for "Nucleus Plus". I'm sure how far into OO
the operating system goes, but it's a lot closer than a procedural
operating system.

To increase the potential, allow users to pick and choose at the
"advanced" features. Many embedded systems, which are the primary
customers of OTS operating systems, don't have much room for
large operating systems and only want the stuff they need, no more.
For example, a vending machine is too simple to implement the
Windows CE operating system. A high end laser printer, is another
story.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:

http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt

C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++ faq:

http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html

Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

[Michael Groys]

Re: new OO OS



Thomas Matthews wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael Groys wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Hello all,
>> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
>> system.
>> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
>> the OS must move towards OO OS.
>> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
>> So everybody is invited.
>> More information you can find at,
>> http://www.yaooos.org
>> Michael[/color]
>
>
> Search the web for "Nucleus Plus". I'm sure how far into OO
> the operating system goes, but it's a lot closer than a procedural
> operating system.
>
> To increase the potential, allow users to pick and choose at the
> "advanced" features. Many embedded systems, which are the primary
> customers of OTS operating systems, don't have much room for
> large operating systems and only want the stuff they need, no more.
> For example, a vending machine is too simple to implement the
> Windows CE operating system. A high end laser printer, is another
> story.
>[/color]

You are right and indeed OO model allows to perform this easily
by allowing to have efficient microkernel architecture.

[DeMarcus]

Re: new OO OS


There is one really bad thing with object oriented languages:

My view of objects and your view of objects may differ a lot.
That's the beauty of plain C API:s. When I get the API from a
supplier I wrap it within my objects seen from my point of view.

Take threads for instance. I don't like the Java
overload-thread::run()-style of threads. What does a typical
thread class look like from your point of view? (or anyone else
reading this)

Best regards
Daniel Marcus


PS. I like your idea, but I may or may not like your view of
objects.



Michael Groys wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello all,
> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> system.
> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> the OS must move towards OO OS.
> I think that it will be very interesting project with big potential.
> So everybody is invited.
> More information you can find at,
> http://www.yaooos.org
> Michael[/color]

[Stewart Gordon]

Re: new OO OS

While it was 1/2/04 2:26 pm throughout the UK, Michael Groys sprinkled
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:[color=blue]
> Hello all,
> I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> system.
> As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
<snip>

I suppose that would be a nice concept. All the better if it can be
made compatible with C++, D, Object Pascal, ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL
:-) and whatever other OO languages you care to think of....

Further idea: develop an OS with built-in garbage collection facilities.

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[Claudio Puviani]

Re: new OO OS

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yaho o.com> wrote[color=blue]
> While it was 1/2/04 2:26 pm throughout the UK, Michael Groys sprinkled
> little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:[color=green]
> > Hello all,
> > I'm looking for collaborators to develop new object oriented operating
> > system.
> > As most of the software development had moved to the OO languages so
> > the OS must move towards OO OS.[/color]
> <snip>
>
> I suppose that would be a nice concept. All the better if it can be
> made compatible with C++, D, Object Pascal, ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL
> :-) and whatever other OO languages you care to think of....
>
> Further idea: develop an OS with built-in garbage collection facilities.[/color]

I've been trying to avoid this senseless thread, but this desperately needs to
be said. All of the cutesy ideas about OS design that keep cropping up: BEEN
DONE, FOLKS! Been done BETTER. Been done by more competent people. Been written
about in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Can be found in herds through
judicious use of Google.

Time to move these naive sugar-cane-in-the-sky inspirations to a more
appropriate forum. Try comp.l337.kewl. kewl.kewl

Claudio Puviani

[Michael Groys]

Re: new OO OS



DeMarcus wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There is one really bad thing with object oriented languages:
>
> My view of objects and your view of objects may differ a lot.
> That's the beauty of plain C API:s. When I get the API from a
> supplier I wrap it within my objects seen from my point of view.
>
> Take threads for instance. I don't like the Java
> overload-thread::run()-style of threads. What does a typical
> thread class look like from your point of view? (or anyone else
> reading this)
>
> Best regards
> Daniel Marcus
>
>
> PS. I like your idea, but I may or may not like your view of
> objects.
>[/color]

It is indeed very important point,
because I want the new OS to be as programmer friendly as possible.
Still I think that it solvable problem.
First of all I think we can relatively easy define set of objects that
is managed by each module of OS.
A bit harder but still easy to define the objects' functionality.
The most problematic stage is to define the API.
For this purpose we can use Internet society (for example this forum).

And I want to ask people to write here their suggestions about the
set of classes and their api, that new OS must provide.

PS.
How do you like to see Thread class?
In any case we can provide several interfaces,
but their functionality must include the possibility of
execution of some method of users object, to allow user
to provide additional data to the newly created thread.

Best regards, Michael

[DeMarcus]

Re: new OO OS


To me a thread is a task that shall be executed, and most often
it's not an object. Therefore I'd like to see the threads as a
normal method that shall be run, or in this case, a callback
just as in pthreads. To clearify what I mean; I want to be able
to run an arbitrary method within an object just as I run it
normally, sending exaclty the parameters required for that method
and get the result whatever it is.

Let's say I have a class like this:

class Cafe : public Interface // explained later
{
public:

Coffe makeCoffe( bool sugar, bool milk );
Cake makeCake( int nStrawberries );
};

Then I certainly don't want the class to know anything about threads
(maybe reentrance though) meanwhile the user of it may want to run the
methods of it within different threads.

Now you think; "Hmm, callbacks in C++, this may be tricky with
method pointers to some base object. We'll easily run into some tacky
mesh of templates." But there's a way to solve it that I use today.
I use double dispatch for my thread callbacks. It's clean and simple,
BUT it demands that you conform to an Interface/Interaction-standard.

Now we create interactions:

class MakeCoffee : public Interaction
{
public:

// Parameters
bool sugar;
bool milk;

// Results
Coffee coffee;


virtual void executeOn( Interface* interface )
{
Cafe cafe = dynamic_cast<Ca fe*>(interface) ;
if( cafe == 0 )
throw Exception();
coffee = cafe->makeCoffee( sugar, milk );
}
};

class Thread
{
public:

void run( Interface* interface, Interaction* interaction )
{
interaction->executeOn( interface );
}
};

int main( void )
{
Cafe cafe;
MakeCoffee makeCoffee;
Thread thread;

makeCoffee.milk = true;
makeCoffee.suga r = false;

thread.run( &cafe, &makeCoffe );
thread.wait();

if( makeCoffe.coffe e.isGood() )
return 0;

return 1;
}


This is my view of threads. I don't know if anyone else like it.

Best Regards
Daniel Marcus





Michael Groys wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> DeMarcus wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> There is one really bad thing with object oriented languages:
>>
>> My view of objects and your view of objects may differ a lot.
>> That's the beauty of plain C API:s. When I get the API from a
>> supplier I wrap it within my objects seen from my point of view.
>>
>> Take threads for instance. I don't like the Java
>> overload-thread::run()-style of threads. What does a typical
>> thread class look like from your point of view? (or anyone else
>> reading this)
>>
>> Best regards
>> Daniel Marcus
>>
>>
>> PS. I like your idea, but I may or may not like your view of
>> objects.
>>[/color]
>
> It is indeed very important point,
> because I want the new OS to be as programmer friendly as possible.
> Still I think that it solvable problem.
> First of all I think we can relatively easy define set of objects that
> is managed by each module of OS.
> A bit harder but still easy to define the objects' functionality.
> The most problematic stage is to define the API.
> For this purpose we can use Internet society (for example this forum).
>
> And I want to ask people to write here their suggestions about the
> set of classes and their api, that new OS must provide.
>
> PS.
> How do you like to see Thread class?
> In any case we can provide several interfaces,
> but their functionality must include the possibility of
> execution of some method of users object, to allow user
> to provide additional data to the newly created thread.
>
> Best regards, Michael
>[/color]