Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 09:16 UTC, submitted by obsethryl
Thread beginning with comment 302004
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:
2005-11-29
What exactly is useless about those two points?
Memory is completely isolated from process to process, and communication is done via secured channels.
Optional hardware isolation for untrusted (or even legacy and VM'ed native code) processes, and the ability to proof code before it's ever run.
The advantages are all about making these assumptions, and taking the stress off of the developer to do this tedious work.
This is basically software memory protection and instant IPC without using the processor at all.
This does two things:
It frees you of the speed penalty of many context switches (so you don't have to do something dangerous like implement shared memory), and it makes your code heavily portable.
Since you're using no features from the Intel architecture you would easily be able to port it to another platform.
Now when you look at Channels for IPC it seems like a bad idea, until you factor in that it's an instant transfer of data.. and a secure one at that.
The concepts start to look a hell of a lot more attractive given the details.