Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[forsyth]

	mode, all synchronizing via cheap test&set processor instructions, whereas 
	in Plan9/etc. an expensive switch to kernel mode is required, making 
	heavily parallel things unpractical (the cost of mutexes becomes higher 
	than the gain of parallelism).

i don't know about the `etc.' but in Plan 9, at least, if your application could
manage with only test and set processor instructions on Vapour it
would manage on Plan 9, using ... errr... test and set instructions
at user mode.

[9fans] Anybody runs kaffe?

[pac]

Hi,
did anybody try to compile & run Kaffe 0.9.2 ?
http://www.hut.fi/~tikonen/plan9/kaffe-plan9.tar.Z
no binaries included, although stated so, and mk reports errors.

Peter.
--
Peter A Cejchan
biologist
Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ
<cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Ronald G Minnich]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:

> Eyal Lotem wrote:
> > The whole *point* behind Vapour is that it uses a safe language, rather
> > than damage-prevention hardware protection, ...
> > A serious advantage of Vapour for example, is since it doesn't reuqire
> > hardware protection, ...
>
> ? How on Earth can Vapour tell whether or not an access to e.g. serial
> port #0 is "safe"?
>

And why doesn't anybody ever seem to know that Burroughs plowed this
furrow for 25 years with no real good effect.

It's always fun when a user program brings down a mainframe due to a
compiler bug ...

ron

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Eyal Lotem wrote:
> The whole *point* behind Vapour is that it uses a safe language, rather
> than damage-prevention hardware protection, ...
> A serious advantage of Vapour for example, is since it doesn't reuqire
> hardware protection, ...

? How on Earth can Vapour tell whether or not an access to e.g. serial
port #0 is "safe"?

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[David Gordon Hogan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 22 bytes --]

Inferno does this.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2620 bytes --]

From: Eyal Lotem <eyal@hyperroll.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:45:21 GMT
Message-ID: <3b8ea46f@news.bezeqint.net>

Boyd Roberts wrote:

>> I think all the OS projects that use C++ figure that one out sooner or
>> later ...
> 
> i fear that C++ coder's brains are so damaged by the experience that
> they are _incapable_ of figuring it out.  snow crash, indeed.
Well, EROS is moving to C, and Vapour is as far from C\C++ as you can 
imagine.
The whole *point* behind Vapour is that it uses a safe language, rather 
than damage-prevention hardware protection, which allows a lot of the tests 
to move to compiletime, and allows interesting things, such as guaranteeing 
running code complies with object interfaces, without verifying this in 
runtime (Sometimes it could be unverifiable, or very expensive to verify).
A serious advantage of Vapour for example, is since it doesn't reuqire 
hardware protection, it can run many threads simulataniously, all in kernel 
mode, all synchronizing via cheap test&set processor instructions, whereas 
in Plan9/etc. an expensive switch to kernel mode is required, making 
heavily parallel things unpractical (the cost of mutexes becomes higher 
than the gain of parallelism).

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Eyal Lotem]

Boyd Roberts wrote:

>> I think all the OS projects that use C++ figure that one out sooner or
>> later ...
> 
> i fear that C++ coder's brains are so damaged by the experience that
> they are _incapable_ of figuring it out.  snow crash, indeed.
Well, EROS is moving to C, and Vapour is as far from C\C++ as you can 
imagine.
The whole *point* behind Vapour is that it uses a safe language, rather 
than damage-prevention hardware protection, which allows a lot of the tests 
to move to compiletime, and allows interesting things, such as guaranteeing 
running code complies with object interfaces, without verifying this in 
runtime (Sometimes it could be unverifiable, or very expensive to verify).
A serious advantage of Vapour for example, is since it doesn't reuqire 
hardware protection, it can run many threads simulataniously, all in kernel 
mode, all synchronizing via cheap test&set processor instructions, whereas 
in Plan9/etc. an expensive switch to kernel mode is required, making 
heavily parallel things unpractical (the cost of mutexes becomes higher 
than the gain of parallelism).

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[David Gordon Hogan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 57 bytes --]

I want stubborn processes.  Persistence isn't enough.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1609 bytes --]

From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:58:01 GMT
Message-ID: <3B8E4380.66B8C3A@null.net>

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> ken: we have persistant objects...  they're called files.

In EROS the processes are persistent.

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> ken: we have persistant objects...  they're called files.

In EROS the processes are persistent.

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Boyd Roberts]

ken: we have persistant objects...  they're called files.

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Boyd Roberts]

> I think all the OS projects that use C++ figure that one out sooner or
> later ...

i fear that C++ coder's brains are so damaged by the experience that
they are _incapable_ of figuring it out.  snow crash, indeed.

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Boyd Roberts]

> orthogonal persistence

sure, i'll take a case.

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Ronald G Minnich]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:

> EROS is pretty neat, and actually exists. Shapiro said C++ was a mistake.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think all the OS projects that use C++ figure that one out sooner or
later ...

ron

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Ronald G Minnich]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Eyal Lotem wrote:

> Do you think the increased backwards compatability of Plan9 is worth the
> lack of advantages such as a pure capability system, orthogonal
> persistence, and in the case of Vapour, extreme performance and utter
> safety?

say, is this set of things you list stuff you have used from your personal
experience or the glossy brochures?

ron

Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Rick Hohensee]

> 
> How do you think Plan9 compares to the Eros (www.eros-os.org) and Vapour () 
> designs?
> Do you think the increased backwards compatability of Plan9 is worth the 
> lack of advantages such as a pure capability system, orthogonal 
> persistence, and in the case of Vapour, extreme performance and utter 
> safety?
> 

mirror(Eyal Lotem) = motel laye.

Vapour is vapour, last I heard. It's based on a trusted compiler as
well. I don't trust compilers. 

EROS is pretty neat, and actually exists. Shapiro said C++ was a mistake.

Rick Hohensee
x86 compembler in Bash
ftp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX/interim/osimpa.tgz
 

[9fans] EROS, Vapour

[Eyal Lotem]

How do you think Plan9 compares to the Eros (www.eros-os.org) and Vapour () 
designs?
Do you think the increased backwards compatability of Plan9 is worth the 
lack of advantages such as a pure capability system, orthogonal 
persistence, and in the case of Vapour, extreme performance and utter 
safety?