Moose specs: Revision 0! (forwarded)

[Gary D. Duzan]

   JJ accidentally sent this only to me.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration
                         Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts




------- Forwarded Message

Received: from louie.udel.edu by sol.cis.udel.edu id aa07811;
          12 Feb 93 13:19 GMT
Received: from knuth.mtsu.edu by louie.udel.edu id aa09576; 12 Feb 93 8:18 EST
Received: by knuth.mtsu.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
	id m0nN0JW-000cz0C; Fri, 12 Feb 93 07:20 CST
Message-Id: <m0nN0JW-000cz0C@knuth.mtsu.edu>
From: JJ Lay <csjjlay@knuth.mtsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Moose specs: Revision 0!
To: "Gary D. Duzan" <duzan@udel.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 07:20:17 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To:  <9302112255.aa09511@gloin.cis.udel.edu> from "Gary D. Duzan" at Feb 11, 93 05:55:03 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL17]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3035      

Gary D. Duzan said:
: => DOS is directly programmed with 8088 assmebly language; Unix is programmed
: =>with C; MacOS is OO styled programmed with Pascal. In every case, the system
: =>and the language are thought together, and each adapted to the other.
: => It will be the same with MOOSE. Whatever language you choose to program
: =>with (I mean high-level stuff, not the Kernel, which is bound to be mainly
: =>done in assembly), it with shape your system. If you don't choose any
: =>language, the default will be assembly, and you'll be as unportable and
: =>unimprovable as DOS. If you choose C, you won't do better than U*ix. Perhaps
: =>C++ can do better, but it inherits much from C low-level philosophy, and
: =>won't give you a clean high-level OO system.
: 
:    True, but what can we do? If we can get a compiler for a good
: object-oriented language that will compile on a number of different
: machine, that would be great, but not, I think, too likely. I suppose
: we could try to get a number of language/compiler design people to whip
: up a language and GCC front-end for us to use if we really wanted to,
: or maybe use an existing language and develop a GCC front-end for it. I
: hate to say it, but C++ looks like the way to go for now. As long as we
: specify the interfaces and abide by them, we should be able to make it
: language-independant. It might be a good idea to develop a Smalltalk
: interface in parallel.

Or as you mentioned come up with a new language that will implement all
the features and constructs we need and want.  There is a lot of
research going on in the languages field and perhaps we gould take some
of the best from each.  I personally would enjoy doing this and am sure
there are others who would.  Let me here how everyone else feels!

: => To conclude, I think we mustn't rush doing what would be the kernel of a
: =>system whose features aren't defined yet. Let's define the high-level object
: =>orientation of the system before we write the kernel (more precisely, let's
: =>not write something in the kernel we should have to change completely
: =>because it will not fit high-level system requirements).
: 
:    Agreed. And likewise, let's not design high-level facilities that
: are natural on one platform but aren't easily implemented on others.

Yes.  Let's take our time and do this right!
							------
							JJ LAY

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJ LAY                                  CENTER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ASSTNT MICROCOMPUTER MANGR             MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
csjjlay@mtsu.edu                                             MTSU BOX 80
(615) 898-2658                                   Murfreesboro, TN  37132
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I used to think that the idea of space probes was to answer questions.
That's hopeless.  You invariably raise more questions than you answer."
	-Andrew Ingersoll, Caltech, member of the Voyager 2 imaging team


------- End of Forwarded Message