Micro Kernel Question

[Brian Rice]

>> which I guess would classify as a kernel wouldn't it?
>
>In my long debate with Fare about this some time ago, I decided that
>calling a system kernelless was about splitting hairs on definitions -
>there would always be some fundamental metamodule somewhere, which was
>basically a kernel unless you went for some predefine strict definition of
>kernel which depended on the person :-)


I still disagree.  Compilers for every OS that I know of translate some
high-level language into running code that invokes kernel services.  The
issue is to change this notion into one where the added code (perhaps
considered aspect code) allows the program to use memory, i/o, and processor
resources in a co-operatively stable way.  This would be a "kernel-less"
system, even if you consider the kernel to be compile-time instead of
run-time, since a compiler could be considered a reflective run-time service
for a persistent system.  As such, the compiler would not have to be
monolithic, but instead a collection of schemes for co-operative code
generation which could be even swapped at run-time.

    Brian