I submitted it at osnews, not expecting it to show up at slashdot.
The osnews wave of visitors gave ~22000 hits in one day!
the ROS project is about one month old and still in the planning state.
Feel free to submit text to the wiki.
- do you have ideas for how Ruby should be used in a os?
- which features in your current os do you believe are vital?
- POLS in an operating system, tell your opinion?
http://ros.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?RecentChanges
Thanks for huge interest… it will be appreciated.
···
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:18:39 -0800, Phil Tomson wrote:
–
Simon Strandgaard
./ normally does not have vaporware… are a bunch of ruby (a very high
level language) programmers going learn asm?
No offence intended.
···
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 08:21, Phil Tomson wrote:
.‘’. Paul William : :' : Debian admin and user . '
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Somehow i have this strange feeling that not all ruby peeps are strictly
high level programmers.
Zach
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul William [mailto:maillist@bestworldweb.homelinux.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:05 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Ruby OS mentioned on /.
…/ normally does not have vaporware… are a bunch of ruby (a very high
level language) programmers going learn asm?
No offence intended.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 08:21, Phil Tomson wrote:
Adopt a Lost Technology Today For R.O.S. - Slashdot
=190
.‘’. Paul William : :' : Debian admin and user . '
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Paul William wrote:
./ normally does not have vaporware… are a bunch of ruby (a very high
level language) programmers going learn asm?No offence intended.
Well, having written a few embedded operating systems, and plenty of
assembler (& C & C++ & Java etc etc) in my time. I use ruby exactly
because it is a very high level language. Perhaps it takes a low lever
programmer to really appreciate it. I doubt I am alone in the ruby
community.
You could cause offense with those kinds of comments. Even if you don’t
intend to.
Ralph
···
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 08:21, Phil Tomson wrote:
“Simon Strandgaard” neoneye@adslhome.dk skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2004.01.13.21.52.51.152261@adslhome.dk…
I submitted it at osnews, not expecting it to show up at slashdot.
The osnews wave of visitors gave ~22000 hits in one day!the ROS project is about one month old and still in the planning state.
I justed looked a bit at GnuStep yesterday. Apparently there is an Linux
from Scratch inspired operating system named SimplyGnuStep that is entirely
based around GnuStep for userinterface already from bootstrapping:
http://simplygnustep.com/index.html
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003101600626RVSW
GnuStep is based around Objective C and is apparently compatible with Cocoa.
It might be worthwhile looking into this with a Ruby centric approach.
SimplyGnuStep isn’t particularly mature at this point.
MikkelFJ
···
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:18:39 -0800, Phil Tomson wrote:
Well, I can’t claim to be a hot-shot Ruby programmer, but I have written
tens of thousands of line of assembler on a number of platforms.
– Matt
Experience: That which allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it
again.
···
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Zach Dennis wrote:
Somehow i have this strange feeling that not all ruby peeps are strictly
high level programmers.
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
Well, having written a few embedded operating systems, and plenty of
assembler (& C & C++ & Java etc etc) in my time. I use ruby exactly
because it is a very high level language.
true. my bad 
···
programmer to really appreciate it. I doubt I am alone in the ruby
community.You could cause offense with those kinds of comments. Even if you don’t
intend to.Ralph
–
.‘’. Paul William : :' : Debian admin and user . '
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
You could cause offense with those kinds of comments. Even if you don’t
intend to.
I am truely sorry I caused offence to anybody.
···
Ralph
–
.‘’. Paul William : :' : Debian admin and user . '
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Ralph Mason wrote:
Well, having written a few embedded operating systems, and plenty of
assembler (& C & C++ & Java etc etc) in my time. I use ruby exactly
because it is a very high level language. Perhaps it takes a low lever
programmer to really appreciate it. I doubt I am alone in the ruby
community.
Same here. I was writing Assembler languages back when they and FORTRAN
were the only languages that really mattered. I’ve programmed in
FORTRAN, COBOL, ALGOL, PL/I, Pascal, several different BASICs, C, C++,
Ada, REXX, RPG, and PERL, and I’ve dabbled some in LISP and half a dozen
other languages. I’ve only been working with Ruby for a couple of
weeks, and I can already see that, where raw CPU speed isn’t a problem,
I’m going to be using Ruby a lot.
···
–
John W. Kennedy
“But now is a new thing which is very old–
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor’s sake.”
– Charles Williams. “Judgement at Chelmsford”
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++.
Random tidbit/link:
Check out LLVM (Low-level VM), I’ve been contemplating using that as a
back-end for a Ruby compiler/VM. They have a recent paper where they run
LLVM at the kernel level: LLVA (Low-level Virtual Architecture). Might
give you some nice ideas… I know the PyPy folks have some plans on
using it so there is probably something of interest there.
Regards,
Robert Feldt
I seriously didnt mean to offend. I myself almost exclusively code in
high level languages (I am a web developer) . I think creating ROS would
be awesome. but posting on ./ before there is any code…
···
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 11:12, Matt Lawrence wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Zach Dennis wrote:
Somehow i have this strange feeling that not all ruby peeps are strictly
high level programmers.Well, I can’t claim to be a hot-shot Ruby programmer, but I have written
tens of thousands of line of assembler on a number of platforms.– Matt
Experience: That which allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it
again.
–
.‘’. Paul William : :' : Debian admin and user . '
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
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
Paul William maillist@bestworldweb.homelinux.com writes:
I seriously didnt mean to offend. I myself almost exclusively code
in high level languages (I am a web developer) . I think creating
ROS would be awesome. but posting on ./ before there is any code…
LOL!
Shocking! Something on slashdot that’s vaporware?!?
···
–
Josh Huber
I wasn’t offended at all. I was just pointing out that I’m probably a
much better assembly language programmer than Ruby programmer. I’m sure
some of the folks at the Ruby Conference can vouch for how much I still
have to learn about programming in Ruby.
– Matt
Experience: That which allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it
again.
···
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Paul William wrote:
I seriously didnt mean to offend. I myself almost exclusively code in
high level languages (I am a web developer) . I think creating ROS would
be awesome. but posting on ./ before there is any code…
Charles Comstock wrote:
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.
I doubtly think everything in the kernel will be implemented in pure
Ruby (yet!)
The most intriguing aspect of ROS to me is that all libraries/components
will be automatically available to Ruby programs. Currently most OS are
C/C+±centric; libraries are available to C/C++ programs. Don’t you just
hate it when you encounter a cool library but then have to find a Ruby
binding for it first… This all happens to all other languages though
(Perl, Python, …). Creating a binding for each language and for each
library, what a waste of time.
···
–
dave
Did you mean freshmeat? 
Or maybe sourceforge…
runs away
···
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:45:32 +0900 Josh Huber huber@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
Paul William maillist@bestworldweb.homelinux.com writes:
I seriously didnt mean to offend. I myself almost exclusively code
in high level languages (I am a web developer) . I think creating
ROS would be awesome. but posting on ./ before there is any code…LOL!
Shocking! Something on slashdot that’s vaporware?!?
–
Ryan Pavlik rpav@mephle.com
“Well, I don’t like to brag, but I am a villain after all.” - 8BT
In article 4006286C.508@zara.6.isreserved.com,
Charles Comstock wrote:
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.
Yes. It’s hard to see how you could write an OS in Ruby at this point.
If you could compile Ruby code to native code then it would be another
story.
The wonderful dynamic
nature of
the language that we all love unfortuneatly also cuts into the overall
speed of
execution.I doubtly think everything in the kernel will be implemented in pure
Ruby (yet!)
The most intriguing aspect of ROS to me is that all libraries/components
will be automatically available to Ruby programs. Currently most OS are
C/C+±centric; libraries are available to C/C++ programs. Don’t you just
hate it when you encounter a cool library but then have to find a Ruby
binding for it first…
Check out Ruby/DL. I just ran across this a couple of weeks ago when I
read Whytheluckystiff’s “What’s Shiny and New in Ruby 1.8?”
http://whytheluckystiff.net/articles/2003/08/04/rubyOneEightOh
Ruby/DL is included in Ruby 1.8.
http://ttsky.net/ruby/ruby-dl.html
This all happens to all other languages though
(Perl, Python, …). Creating a binding for each language and for each
library, what a waste of time.
Swig goes a long way toward making this easy and less redundant.
Phil
···
David Garamond lists@zara.6.isreserved.com wrote:
cannot, but we would like to write the lolevel layers in ruby, such
as kernel, drivers, gui-rendering. But speed will certainly become an
issue. Therefore we have to stick with C/C++ for this.
Though before we implement it, we first prototype it in Ruby.
Ruby will be used for as much hilevel code as possible.
init-system, managing preferences, exotic io-slaves, …
···
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:23:49 +0000, Phil Tomson wrote:
In article 4006286C.508@zara.6.isreserved.com,
David Garamond lists@zara.6.isreserved.com wrote:Charles Comstock wrote:
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.Yes. It’s hard to see how you could write an OS in Ruby at this point.
If you could compile Ruby code to native code then it would be another
story.
–
Simon Strandgaard