On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:24:51 +0000, irneb <> wrote:
>The true situation about OS's is that they're all based on a pre-selected Programming Language. Most OS's these days stem from the C programming language (especially MS & Linux). As the language also got extended (C++ has some OO elements built on top of normal C) so did the OS. There's very few truly OO programming languages, most so-called OO "capable" languages only add an interface onto the existing thing (C++, VB, Delhi, Ada, Fortran). You get "pure" OO programming languages such as SmallTalk, Eiffel & Ruby, and then OO languages with some procedural elements built in such as Java & Python. The most however are procedural with extensions to provide OO features, such as C++, Fortran 2003, Perl.
>
>Here's a link to what this really means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_operating_system
Ah, the ubiquitous Wikipedia article linked to give an argument some strength.
Gotta love it.
You seem to think that just because an OS is purely Object Oriented, that that
somehow makes it exceptional above all others, and all other OSes to be crap in
comparison.
What you don't mention is any reference to the idea that you write OO code in a
much higher level language than something like C++, and with every higher order
of programming means it is built on abstraction after abstraction, as C++ is
higher level than C, which is a higher level than Assembly, which is higher than
pure machine code.
Thus, a completely OO-based OS may not be the best thing, or even a good thing,
because what you want in an OS is lighting fast efficient code - you rarely get
that with OO code because it was built to make programming easier, not for speed
or efficiency. Just because it is OO doesn't make it a wonderful OS to work with
on a daily basis
JavaOS may be a wonderful example of an OS built on OO based programming from
the ground up. Might also be nice to hear from a person who actually USES it.
And, if you read your linked article, you would see that the kernel itself is
NOT OO, because it cannot be.
I would think that Microsoft - after a dozen years, handful of operating systems
under their belt, and the collective IQ of a small galaxy at their disposal -
would completely understand OO programming principals and would have applied
them to the various operating systems it has built over the years. IF that
solution would have provided benefits to the user in performance, stability, or
ease of use.
It's always easy to criticize Windows and Microsoft in general, but to spank
Windows for its apparent lack of OO code base is REALLY stretching things a bit.
Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com