From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.2uCIJahv+a4XEBqttj5Vkw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: is there a version of unix written in Ada Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 08:56:44 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <00cd3aaa-d518-43a2-b321-58d6fae70aebo@googlegroups.com> <57eb7a65-51ea-4624-b9dc-9c4dda0fee59n@googlegroups.com> <5f70fd3b$0$13541$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <87wo0d3iac.fsf@nightsong.com> <87sgb02l7b.fsf@nightsong.com> <875z7vyy1u.fsf@nightsong.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2uCIJahv+a4XEBqttj5Vkw.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:60382 List-Id: On 01/10/2020 23:36, Brian Drummond wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:42:21 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> On 30/09/2020 19:27, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: >>>> OK, but that again is rather retrograde, MS-DOS pops into my mind >>>> (:-)). >>> >>> MSDOS had no memory protection at all, and was basically single >>> tasking. >>> Singularity had the limitation that you were only allowed to use >>> trusted compilers, but in exchange it gave an interesting approach to >>> programming high performance multiprocessor systems. >> >> Put a trusted compiler into MS-DOS, where is a difference? Tasking would >> be up to the compiler's run-time, obviously. >> >> I want an OS protecting from compilers I do not trust without >> performance loss. Static checks must be enforced at run-time. > > Maybe I should knock together a new Linn Rekursiv on an FPGA. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekursiv > > Objects were essentially memory segments, together with their own object > number, type, size : static checks happened in parallel with operations. > Even inheritance was handled below the instruction set level (in > microcode) Wow, I newer heard about it. It is pretty close to the general idea. And surely SmallTalk is not the right OO model for the stuff. [UK was leading innovations that time. Inmos' transputers is an example.] -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de