ORG,GEN [far22]

Francois-Rene Rideau rideau@clipper
Sun, 28 Mar 93 4:44:30 MET DST

In [Arf1] (I'm happy everybody begins numbering his messages), Andreas says:

> First:
> Let's divide into smaller groups.
> Second:
> Let's get something done.

Hey, Andreas, you awoke me from my sleep ! Thanks for that, but ...
Here's my reply to Andreas.

 That's true, discussion don't advance quickly enough, and we must organize.
I've proposed something in my early [far10] message (Monday, March, 1st)
but nobody ever replied (did you read it? I know I should have posted
multiple messages rather than a big boring one).
 My point is: YES, we must each concentrate on a subject, and YES, each
subject should have a manager that keeps track of discussion, what are
pros and cons of each solution to each problem. But NO we can't split:
we haven't agreed on anything precise yet.

 What we know and are sure of is:
- the system will manage objects.
- objects are manipulated through Object IDs, that are valid through the
whole system, but are somehow protected.
- objects are more or less the same as processes; multitasking IS having
multiple objects living at the same time.
- objects are not isolated; they live in society and can create new links
between each other through dictionaries.
- dictionaries are called once then short-circuited.

 All the remaining is still discussed. So how can you talk about I/O !
I'd love we be able to, but unhappily not at the moment.
 Let's organize first and agree on more detailed features, as well as
on the essential point everybody flees (excepted Michael, who knows it,
but tries to reject it): what are objects to be precisely, and what
will the Kernel/base system implement ?

> Discussions can continue but we got to get something done!
They must, and only through them can we advance.

> 'Nough moral talk.

> Now the updated lists with people:

> Group Name: Group Leader: Participants:
>      Sub Group:
> MOOSE:      Dennis (I have currently taken his place to get some structure)
>                        Participants: All who gets this mail!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kernel:      Dennis       Dennis, John Newlin, Peter Mueller(?).
>         ROI: Peter M.(?)
Add me to the Kernel list: language and Kernel are linked.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> IO devices:   None so far but don't worry
>         Keyboards:
>         Disks (hard and floppy):
>         Com/Parallel(/mice) ports: Dennis (he has already done some of it)
>         SCSI-interface: Who where you who showed interrest in this?
>         (G)UI: Andreas Arff (JJ?)
Add me to the GUI list too. GUI is not only IO, 'cause it interfaces the
user himself, not only the machine; interfacing is having a discussion,
even (all the more) in a non ASCII language !

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Language support: Fare'    Fare' and JJ Lay
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you remind me to talk you about languages ... soon !

I agree with groups, but again we can't split for the time being, without
having agreed anything in common to the groups (not even the ROI
implementation principles).

> Now there are one more thing I want you elgere to notice when you respond
> to my last mail, tell me what langauge you want the language group to work
> with.
 A NEW language; it should be OOed, include functional notation, and
constraint programming and/or inter-object relation managing. It should
also be meta-self (i.e. be its own preprocessor), be modular (auto-
expandable), handle genericity, accept polymorphism and inheritance through
 Why not C++ : it inherits low-level features and unsecureness from C; bad
low-level feature: implementation is determined by syntax, not optimization;
type casting is unsafe, so you can't trust compiled code; only special
paging hardware can enable safety.

> Sorry Fare' and Lay, we are not buying a pig without having a look at it
> first:-(.
 You're right; that's why I'm talking about it in next message.

> Dennis have said he'll take command of the kernel group immediately, so listen
> up kernelers'.
I do.

> I miss response from the following: (Don't know the name of you all:-()
> Gary D. Duzan
> David Garfield
> Dr. Hayden
> McKeeve
> Dan Odom
> Michael Winikoff
> Francois Rene Rideau
now that's done for me. (sorry: that wasn't private mail, but I think I had
things to say to everybody).
> Dspascha (?)
> Erik "Fate" ...

> Those who have responded positively:
> Dennis
> John Newlin
> JJ Lay
> Me (that was hard to guess...)

> Current status:
> Dennis has done some work (I mean coding) regarding
> 1) the Kernel
> 2) Idea testing the kernel with a muckettymuck C++program
> 3) Written drivers for com and parallel ports (don't know how finished they
>     are, or if it is just old stuff)
What kernel are you going to test ?

> Now respond!
> BTW, if you have lost interrest please notice me! I'm trying to get this
> coordinated and it would be a lot more easy if you could respond soon.

> Arff
> PS. To you who does respond before Wednesday, you get a free watch that
> shows the correct time for 86400 different cities all around the world.
> To those of you who don't, you'll get mentioned as quislings in the
> manual:-)
The greatest threat was not this one; it was that of seeing MOOSE end up into
nothing if nothing is done soon (...or if something stupid is done).