Umm I really don't think ruby is fast enough a language to write an OS in.
Don't get me wrong, I love the language and all, but an OS is just one of those
places where every little bit of speed counts.  The wonderful dynamic nature of
the language that we all love unfortuneatly also cuts into the overall speed of
execution.

It would be fun to play with in terms of how it would make the OS THAT much more
dynamic as well, but I don't think it would wind up being fast enough to be
anything much beyond a fun experiment.

I seem to have mislayed the OP, was the OS just intended as a test-bed / proof
of concept?  What was it intended for?

Charles Comstock

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Simon Strandgaard wrote:

> First Paul William wrote:
> > ./ normally does not have vaporware... are a bunch of ruby (a very high
> > level language) programmers going learn asm?
>
>
> Then Zach Dennis wrote:
> > Somehow i have this strange feeling that not all ruby peeps are strictly
> > high level programmers.
>
>
> We hope to stand on the giant shoulders, and have
> been talking about using the L4 micro kernel, so
> there won't be any need for assembler coding.
> C/C++ code at worst.
>
>
> A top-down approach where proof of concepts are
> worked out first while following the test-first paradigm.
> When all the pieces are in place, we can move to the
> implementation phase. If things are too slow in Ruby,
> then we may have to do it in C/C++.
>
> --
> Simon Strandgaard
>