[fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?

[Prince Riley]

Link to the article about the AT&T UNIX OS and C ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX


On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Prince Riley <wmarketing3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a direct reference from the Wikipedia article I referenced in my
> prior post ...
>
> In 1973, Unix was rewritten in the C programming language<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29>,
> contrary to the general notion at the time "that something as complex as an
> operating system, which must deal with time-critical events, had to be
> written exclusively in assembly language".[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX#cite_note-Stallings-3>The migration from assembly
> language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_Language> to the higher-level
> language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language> C
> resulted in much more portable<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_quality#Portability>software, requiring only a relatively small amount of machine-dependent code
> to be replaced when porting Unix to other computing platforms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_%28computing%29>
> .
>
> Prince
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Prince Riley <wmarketing3 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I don't mean to start a culture war here, but I think there is a bit of
>> overstatement in this post that 'C' is somehow a better language for writing
>> an OS in than say Pascal or OP or anything else.
>>
>> In point of fact, the only 'best' language for any processor is its own
>> machine code which is always binary.
>> And the first operating system software written was done so in the
>> assembly language which is written to use mnemoics
>> that when 'assembled' convert directly into the binary machine language on
>> a one to one basis.
>>
>> Now EVERY compiled language, including  C, must be processed from its
>> syntactical representation into assembly language or machine code. In fact,
>> if you download the GCC complier source code and read it, you'll see  almost
>> immediately that it actually a 'language' front-end connected to a
>> 'assembler machine code' back end.
>>
>> When the 'C' language was designed at AT&T it used 'assembler' like
>> constructs and syntax because it's author wanted
>> to stop writing programs in a language called BCPL..
>>
>> So aside from a 'historical accident'  that the first AT&T OS ..UNIX.. was
>> being written at the same time C was being developed, there is no other
>> reason for any program, including an OS, to be written in C. To suggest that
>> C is better is rather like suggesting that Spanish is a better language than
>> English for writing a novel.
>>
>> That said, if someone wished to write a modern OS in FP, which has nearly
>> every programming construct that 'C' has (ints, doubles, floats, bytes, and
>> bits) and you were willing to put in the time to fine tune and modify the FP
>> compiler, you could produce a OS in FP that would be every bit as effective
>> and perform as well or better as one written in C.  And as far as the
>> processor running the OS couldn't tell what language the OS was written in.
>>
>>
>> If anyone wants to convince themselves on this its simple, you'll find
>> Ritchie (the creator of the C language) explained these points in the
>> preface to his first book on C. There is also a brief mention of this in the
>> Wikipedia article on the UNIX operating system. (see the article footnotes)
>>
>> Prince
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez <
>> gmjimen at burdjia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Are you sure?
>>>
>>> Yes, I am.
>>>
>>> > doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal?
>>>
>>> Yes, it does, but as I said I think it wasn't the better options.
>>>
>>> > I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical
>>> mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because
>>> the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a
>>> wider user base who can fix/add features.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  C is better for write operating systems *by definition*:
>>> C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good
>>> programming techniques.  C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is
>>> high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher):  OS are the lowest
>>> software level.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying it's impossible:  here you have MacOS and Toro. I'm
>>> just saying that _I think_ it isn't the best option.  Of course a
>>> better option is to write the kernel in C and Assembler and the
>>> utilities in Pascal and Object Pascal.
>>>
>>> Guillermo "Ñuño" Martínez
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
>>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/attachments/20081205/6b7d9fae/attachment.html>