upvote

points

by pjmlp7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby charcircuit7 hours ago|
[-]
Even if LISP machines took off, an editor running on them still would not be an OS. Such claims come from people who don't understand what a platform is and who can conflate any platform with an operating system. You also see these people calling web browsers operating systems. By this flawed definition you could even call things like Roblox an operating system.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a language. There shouldn't be one"

-- Dan Ingalls

reply
upvoteby mananaysiempre6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
As long as you don’t care about interlanguage interop, sure. The opposite point of view, that every language tries to become an operating system (and consequently to prevent other languages from coexisting), is also possible, and I’m somewhat more sympathetic to that one.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That is mostly a non issue on microservices and serverless runtimes running on top of type 1 hypervisors, and bare metal embedded deployments.
reply
upvoteby tvink3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm unsure why you point this out. It's also a non issue if you're trying to drive a unicycle. Isn't it more interesting to talk about the cases where it applies? Or do you reckon all programs should be microservices?
reply
upvoteby bcjdjsndon7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In the Linux world, isn't the c compiler necessary for Linux to function?
reply
upvoteby TylerE6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
To build? Sure.

To run? Absolutely not.

reply
upvoteby charcircuit6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Developers love building on platforms. Saying there shouldn't be platforms defies reality.

Edit: Looking up the quote it seems to just be the person being pedantic in how they define operating systems.

reply
upvoteby wtetzner5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Given his work on Smalltalk, I suspect he means that he prefers the line between language runtime and operating system to be erased, and they be the same thing.

I disagree though. While there are benefits to that approach, I feel like language innovation would be stifled to a certain degree.

reply
upvoteby convolvatron5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
that seems backwards to me. one of the primary constraints in language development is the OS api. programs that don't interact with the world are increasingly less interesting, and you really have to work hard and be clever to change the file and its semantics, the socket, or the thread. these things have sharp edges and tend to be leaky.
reply
upvoteby wtetzner2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> that seems backwards to me

I'm not sure I completely understand which part you find backwards. Do you mean merging language runtimes and the OS is a bad idea, or that you think merging them would lead to more innovation?

I can see an argument for both (in terms of innovation), but being able to run only one language environment on a computer at a given time would make it much harder and heavy weight to use new languages. Or at the very least, new language runtimes.

reply
upvoteby raverbashing5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Edit: Looking up the quote it seems to just be the person being pedantic in how they define operating systems.

What a surprise

Pragmatism beats idealism in the real world

reply