On 6/13/06, Dick Davies <rasputnik / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/06/06, Son SonOfLilit <sonoflilit / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Development time of apps for an OS who's native API is ruby dinamic objects
> > would go drastically down.
Apart from higher level of abstraction, the fact that it's all Ruby
idioms, with no dependencies on C or other low level stuff. You could
do that by simply changing extensions to be more Ruby-like, though.
> > Such an OS would be naturally reflective, a feature that would make the
> > world (and especially the business world) a far better and more productive
> > place.
>
> I can't think of anything useful that would give you. Can you?
>
> Ruby is *interpreted*. A lot of it's beauty is a wrapper around system
> calls. I can't begin to think what benefits a high-level dynamic language
> gives you in kernel space
> (where things like memory allocation can't be taken for granted).
>
> --
> Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
> http://number9.hellooperator.net/
>
>
I think it sounds a lot like Squeak/SqueakNOS (standalone Squeak, with
no external OS). I'm not going to try to sound like I know more than I
do, but aren't those written in a Smalltalk subset and minimal custom
C? Such systems are fun and productive, but I'm not sure whether it'll
become practical anytime soon.

-- 
- Simen