[1267] in java-interest
Re: java-interest-digest V1 #134
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Prescod)
Mon Aug 28 13:30:19 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 09:57:34 -0400
To: java-interest@java.sun.com, java-interest-digest@java.sun.com
From: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
At 10:32 PM 8/27/95 -0400, java-interest@java.sun.com wrote:
>But frankly, I can't think of anything more pointless or silly.
But how do you really feel?
>What good would an operating system do you and Java? Do you think people
>*really* want to take the back-asswards approach to computers that Oberon,
>"run the OS on another OS", brings? Look how successful Oberon is (putting
>aside its horrendous interface) -- before you say, "yeah, yeah, it's a
>success" sit back and think about the numbers. Oberon isn't a success, it's
>not even as popular as widely-regarded-as-dead-but-aren't languages like
>Fortran77, Pascal and Modula 2.
And simula wasn't as popular as Algol, but without it we would not have C++
or Smalltalk. Writing a Java operating system is a useful excercise even if
it does not have immediate commercial benefits. The C language and the UNIX
operating system drove a particular way of thinking about programming and
systems design.
OLE and MFC show the depressing complexity that comes with trying to layer
one model on top of another. They also show that this layering always
results in thinking that is trapped within the current paradigm. Sometimes
you have to throw it all away, start from scratch and see what results.
Systems like Oberon, Simula/Smalltalk (and even Unix!) do not in and of
themselves become wildley popular commercial products, but they present
nagging questions. They cause customers and programmers to ask: "Why can't
my operating system do that?" (as in, "Why isn't my operating system
graphical?" "Why doesn't my operating system multitask?" "Why doesn't my
operating system have threads?")
Occaisionally one of these "scud" projects becomes a success in and of
itself. UNIX and Linux are examples. Linux is not very innovative or
forward thinking. Why couldn't a JavaOS be the next Linux? Linux backwards
compatiblity wouldn't be too hard. And it would be easy (relative to other
operating systems) to take JavaOS to the next step, to be a highly
distributed environment where processes jump from machine to machine safely
and securely, depending on resource needs, and where fundamental system
processes can be replaced at runtime.
Most likely you are correct that such a product is not what Java needs. But
perhaps it is what the industry needs. And five years after the hacker
community embraces it we'll see the same features in "Windows 2005." I'm
not personally interested in writing a Java operating system, but I wouldn't
discourage those who would be.
Paul Prescod
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Prescod (mailto:papresco@calum.uwaterloo.ca)
Quality software does not require 1,000,000,000.00 in adverstising.
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
