From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-01 12:18:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!145.254.32.113!not-for-mail From: dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 19:21:07 GMT Message-ID: <3b913376.333516@news.cis.dfn.de> References: <3B8FD027.1AFB483@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 145.254.32.113 X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 999371895 3936982 145.254.32.113 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12629 Date: 2001-09-01T19:21:07+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:58:00 GMT, Darren New wrote: >"M. A. Alves" wrote: >> >> > If you're building an AdaOS, why not make files that are managed with >> > Ada semantics? >> >> My view is close to that. ADTs. File = persistent (un)bounded array of >> storage element (plus user and permission information). Dir = persistent >> (un)bounded array of files (plus ditto). > >But why limit a file to an array of storage elements? Why not persistant >unbounded storage pool? Or persistant unbounded tagged classwide type? >Or persistant protected object? (Ada already has the concept of a >persistant storage mechanism, pragma shared_passive. Why not use that?) Amen. I would like to add, why to have files at all? There should be only objects allocated in one big virtual memory chunk. 64-bit address space allows to address every objects in every computer of the world. There should be no I/O, only memory mapping. Regards, Dmitry Kazakov