Paul Rubin wrote:
"Roose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
Upon reading back in the thread I see that you mean compiled Lisp,
no? I was thinking that there would be a Lisp interpreter in a
kernel, which afaik doesn't exist.
Yes, compiled Lisp. There are Python compilers too.\
??? You mean like Pyrex or some such? I wouldn't exactly call these
"Python" compilers, as that kind of obscures some underlying (critical)
facts.
In any case, as I said before I don't think it is impossible, just a
poor engineering decision and I don't see the rationale behind it.
I don't see a convincing case against writing an OS even in
interpreted Python, though of course I'd want it to be compiled if
possible.
What do you think OS's do, that Python wouldn't be suitable for? Your
examples of task switching and virtual memory are unconvincing. Those
just require setting up some suitable tables and then calling a
low-level routine to poke some CPU registers. File systems can be
more performance intensive, but again, in those, much of the cpu drain
can be relegated to low-level routines and the complexity can be
handled in Python.
Correct.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
