On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND
<sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:47:06PM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> > On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> > >>> [...]
> > >
> > > --------
> > > When you want to promote a new language:
> > > 1 - write a boostrap compiler (for kernel profile and other profiles) in the current "system language" (I guess C, but gcc is now at least c++98).
> > > 2 - write a usable kernel with your language (kernel profile).
> > > 3 - write a compiler for that new language using this new language (all profiles).
> > >
> > > The first components which should be written using this new language are the basic system components *and the kernel*.
> > >
> > > They all epic-ly fail at the kernel step.
> > > --------
> >
>
>
> > You mean redox is an epic fail? Or did I misunderstand this statement?
>
> No. You do shorcuts in order to troll.
> Hurd?
I'm not sure why you are calling Leo a troll. I'm going to assume it's
because you are ignorant of the Redox Operating System:
http://www.redox-os.org/, which is an, *in progress,* ground up effort
to write an entire system (kernel and all) in Rust.
Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far
towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they
all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine).
Of course, you didn't mention rust in your initial list of "unperfect"
languages....
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 01:29:11 CEST