* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
@ 2001-08-31 18:13 David Gordon Hogan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-08-31 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- 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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-09-03 8:39 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
@ 2001-09-03 17:17 ` Ronald G Minnich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ronald G Minnich @ 2001-09-03 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-31 8:45 ` Eyal Lotem
@ 2001-09-03 8:39 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-09-03 17:17 ` Ronald G Minnich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-09-03 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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"?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
@ 2001-08-31 8:53 forsyth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-08-31 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 15:48 ` Boyd Roberts
@ 2001-08-31 8:45 ` Eyal Lotem
2001-09-03 8:39 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Eyal Lotem @ 2001-08-31 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
@ 2001-08-30 18:19 David Gordon Hogan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-08-30 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 15:52 ` Boyd Roberts
@ 2001-08-30 15:58 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-08-30 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Boyd Roberts wrote:
> ken: we have persistant objects... they're called files.
In EROS the processes are persistent.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 9:04 Eyal Lotem
2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
2001-08-29 14:37 ` Ronald G Minnich
@ 2001-08-29 15:52 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-30 15:58 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-08-29 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
ken: we have persistant objects... they're called files.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 14:42 ` Ronald G Minnich
@ 2001-08-29 15:48 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-31 8:45 ` Eyal Lotem
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-08-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 14:37 ` Ronald G Minnich
@ 2001-08-29 15:46 ` Boyd Roberts
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-08-29 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> orthogonal persistence
sure, i'll take a case.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
@ 2001-08-29 14:42 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 15:48 ` Boyd Roberts
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ronald G Minnich @ 2001-08-29 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 9:04 Eyal Lotem
2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
@ 2001-08-29 14:37 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 15:46 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-29 15:52 ` Boyd Roberts
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ronald G Minnich @ 2001-08-29 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
2001-08-29 9:04 Eyal Lotem
@ 2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
2001-08-29 14:42 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 14:37 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 15:52 ` Boyd Roberts
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Rick Hohensee @ 2001-08-29 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
>
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [9fans] EROS, Vapour
@ 2001-08-29 9:04 Eyal Lotem
2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Eyal Lotem @ 2001-08-29 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-03 17:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-08-31 18:13 [9fans] EROS, Vapour David Gordon Hogan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-08-31 8:53 forsyth
2001-08-30 18:19 David Gordon Hogan
2001-08-29 9:04 Eyal Lotem
2001-08-29 13:40 ` Rick Hohensee
2001-08-29 14:42 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 15:48 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-31 8:45 ` Eyal Lotem
2001-09-03 8:39 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-09-03 17:17 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 14:37 ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-08-29 15:46 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-29 15:52 ` Boyd Roberts
2001-08-30 15:58 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).