Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Jan 2008 23:30 UTC, submitted by obsethryl
"C# has been a language with a mixed history but precise goals. Although the C# language definition is for some time an ISO standard, only a part of the Base Class Library, which contains the fundamental functions that are used by all C# programs (IO, User Interface, Web services, etc) is also standardized. Parts of the BCL have been patented by Microsoft, but that has not deterred developers from attempts at implementing the components that are standardized, in various forms (Mono and affiliated projects). What happens when you go beyond that? What happens when outside the language, you start to implement not a mere application platform, but an entire operating system around it? Brace yourselves, because there is not only Microsoft Research who has done this with Singularity, but at least two other projects doing the same; and they are doing this under opensource terms. A system based around a C# Kernel. In this article, we are looking at one of the two, Cosmos by asking Scott Balmos and Chad Hower about the project they are involved in."
Thread beginning with comment 298726
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-01-02
Makes perfect sense. Between Cosmos, SharpOS ( http://www.sharpos.org/ ), and JNode ( http://www.jnode.org/ ), I think we all have a bright future ahead of us.
We won't even have to make the mistakes of eternal backwards compatibility that Windows makes, because we can efficiently emulate other OS' ABIs using OOP abstractions and opcode recompiling.
All hail open-source. Hallowed be the architects.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-01-31
Despite the comment threads already going on, there are a few reasons why C/C++ isn't being used:
1) To prove it's possible to write a CLR-based OS
2) The fact that an OS based around a memory-safe language and runtime is inherently more safe. You eliminate the majority of normal bug openings (buffer overflows especially). And without needing to use segments and separate CPU privilege levels, you don't have to do context switches.
3) Most interesting to me is that by distributing code in a bytecode form, you get platform independence without having to distribute source. Device manufacturers can write a driver, distribute in bytecode, and not have to compile for every architecture, kernel version, etc. Nor do they have to distribute source, which somewhat protects trade secret interests (I know, bytecode can be easily reverse-engineered. But it's a "see no evil" effort, in my opinion).
Hope that made vague sense.