From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA09125; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:22:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09061 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:22:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from web11901.mail.yahoo.com (web11901.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.185]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id fAB8MDn22591 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:22:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <20011111082213.51037.qmail@web11901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.221.171.193] by web11901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:22:13 PST Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:22:13 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Rewriting UNIX in Caml and getting rid of the C disease To: Eric Newhuis , caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <003401c16a77$aa5f2860$0401a8c0@XENO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk There are is probably a lot more non-C/C++, safe software in Linux and UNIX than in Windows NT. Linux and UNIX use shell, Perl, Python, and awk extensively--safe, high-level programming languages (if dynamically typed). Linux installations often also use cfengine, a kind of expert system shell for system configuration. And this is nothing new: 15 years ago, statistics at Bell Labs showed that people spent a lot more compute cycles in awk than in native C programs. Still, dynamic languages have their limitations, and it would be nice to rethink and build larger parts of the Linux environment in ML, in part to achieve more safety, and in part to make it easier to modify and extend system software. Both UNIX and ML would benefit from the experience and results. Utilities like "unison" and "bibtex2html" (both written in OCAML) are a good indication that ML can be used for such applications. I think most people don't spend much time on it because there isn't really a big itch that needs to be scratched for them. Apache, or "GNU ls", may both be messy, hard-to-maintain C programs, but they get the job done and someone else is doing the testing, so why bother rewriting them? Still, all it takes is volunteers, so go ahead and pick a project. Tom --- Eric Newhuis wrote: > > Is there a market for such a thing? Defense? Secure operating systems? > What are all the tangible benefits? > > > > What will the name fo the OS be? SafeLix? FreeBSafeD? > > > > Windows NT might already be part of the way there depending on how one views > Prolog as being closer to Caml. I guess they're both functional. Has > Prolog, used in the following manner, added the safety you hope to achieve? > And could Caml have also achieved it? > > > > Microsoft used Prolog in NT's network stack. > http://research.microsoft.com/research/dtg/davidhov/pap.htm > > > ------------------- > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: > http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr