Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows

From: Ekkehard Morgenstern (ekkehard.morgenstern_at_onlinehome.de)
Date: 12/19/03

  • Next message: Hyman Rosen: "Re: How to test object hierarchy" 
    Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:11:43 +0100

    "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
    > > Windows NT 4.0 is an anachronism.
    >
    > It is more stable than 2k/XP, thank to absence of plug'n'pray, I suppose.

    No, it's because NT is smaller and hence less bug-prone.

    If you update Windows 2000 or XP regularly using the Windows Update function,
    and make sure you have good drivers (for example by getting them from
    Microsoft if possible, or the latest from the device manufacturer), they are
    no less stable than NT.

    > Multitasking is also better under NT, at least it is more predictable.

    That's only because XP is bigger and runs more stuff after booting.
    If you disable all unneeded services, and make sure you have drivers
    that don't block out the task scheduler, then XP should behave just as good.

    > So many of our customers keep sticking to NT. And honestly, I can hardly
    > remember anything really new in OS API...

    There's truckloads of new stuff in the Windows 2000 and XP system APIs.
    Not only everything has improved, but also there's plenty of new stuff.
    Many concepts have been adapted from the UNIX world (like job scheduling),
    but there are also new concepts, enhanced graphics, more components, and
    so on.

    If your customers keep sticking to NT forever, they will have to make
    a major investment when upgrading to a new system someday. The current
    world is already 2 generations ahead, and the third is already in the
    make (Longhorn).

    Some people are still using MS-DOS or Windows 3.1, but that doesn't mean
    they're better than what's current.

    You can already run 64 bit applications on XP.
     
    > As well as quick basic...

    So what? Microsoft is ensuring compatability. You can even still run DOS
    programs on XP (tho somewhat limited).
     
    > There is no different way to do things I mentioned. There are only more or
    > less nasty work-arounds. It is OK for 80% of applications, but for an OS,
    > using work-arounds in API is the worst thing I can imagine. Nobody needs
    > one more "adux" or "adows". We need a completely new OS. Scalable from
    > embedded to mainframe, from real-time to time-sharing etc, and with an OO
    > API. So if ADT and OO with all their bells and whistles are not supported
    > by a language (and presently there is no one), it is would be a great
    > mistake to make the OS API OO.

    Well, arbitrary inheritance might not be what you want when creating an OS.

    Also, wanting features from other languages in Ada might not be the right
    solution. Ada has its own concept. We'll see what the Ada20xx committee will
    decide upon.

    For me, as a C++ programmer, it's also weird to get acquainted with Ada,
    but I at least can admit that I like its concepts. And I don't think there's
    really something missing in the language, altho new capabilities might
    always be good.

    All that inheritance stuff present in C++ didn't necessarily lead to better
    programs. In fact, C++ programs are often unnecessarily bloated and big.
    For example, in Ada I can simply use a limited type when I want to prevent
    assignment to it. In C++ I have to declare a private copy constructor and
    a private copy assignment, which makes no sense really, in a logical way.
    And if I do want to support copying in C++, I have to write at least a
    copy constructor and a copy assignment for every class. Template classes
    have nonsensical limitations, and some of the scope rules (like no goto
    over initialization) are nonsensical either. To use exceptions in C++,
    I have to create a real exception class, while in Ada I can simply declare it,
    which greatly speeds up implementation of code supporting exceptions.
    In C++, there are no built-in types for concurrent data structures and tasks,
    which means you have to use a library, which is almost never portable.

    Especially the concurrency aspects of Ada make it ideal as a systems
    programming and implementation language.

    The whole OO stuff isn't really necessary for an OS. Abstraction (using types)
    and black-boxing (information hiding) is more important than proper OO
    inheritance schemes.

    BTW, there was/is a fully OO OS, namely BeOS, which used C++. So perhaps you
    should support the development of BeOS. I've heard there's a group continuing
    its development after Be Inc. abandoned it.

    > > If you take your time to
    > > understand them, you can use them effectively as well.
    > >
    > > I bet the Ada 20xx standard that is in the works will add even more
    > > interesting stuff to the language.
    >
    > I bet it will not change the situation. The time of a big cut is yet to
    > come.

    Well, let's see. People interested in reliable software will always be
    supporting such languages as Ada.

  • Next message: Hyman Rosen: "Re: How to test object hierarchy"

    Relevant Pages

    • ANN: Pyrogine2D API v1.0.1
      ... The API includes support for surfaces, textures, sprites, ... Works with any language that supports standard Win32 DLLs. ... Can render to default application window or to a specified window ...
      (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
    • Re: The future of Ada is at risk
      ... The current lack of a DOD mandate isn't the reason for Ada's diminishing market share, the market share is the result of a real or imagined problem with the language, environment or something else. ... We don't let construction workers design bridges or choose the materials for them, but we regularly let the construction workers design and choose the materials for significant SW projects. ... A controlled study by the US Military Academy found Ada to be a better 1st language than Pascal, which was designed as a teaching language. ... Now multiprocessors are becoming common, and a language with good, high-level support for parallelism should be the language of choice for such systems. ...
      (comp.lang.ada)
    • Re: Factory Pattern
      ... The programming language does not exist in a vacuum and the typical ... additional burden and the risk of mistakes is against the Ada spirit ... let's better write some more Latin1 code with standard naming ... However, the requirement for this support came down from above; ...
      (comp.lang.ada)
    • Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management
      ... Ada has a somewhat unusual history. ... were built in over 100 different languages and language dialects. ... This was recognized as a support nightmare. ... The view of the design team was that preprocessors were in conflict ...
      (comp.object)
    • Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management
      ... Ada has a somewhat unusual history. ... were built in over 100 different languages and language dialects. ... This was recognized as a support nightmare. ... The view of the design team was that preprocessors were in conflict ...
      (comp.programming)