An OO OS?
-
Until now, it seems that most of common operating systems have been created using structured programming, and have exposed an API that is also structured. That is, the API is a bunch of global functions and structures. Class libraries, are really wrappers around API functions and structures. What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? For one thing, there would seemingly be seamless interaction between the OS API and any development libraries. Additionally, the commonly mentioned advantages of OOP would make an OO OS less buggy. So, is it feasible to make an OO OS of the same magnitude as Windows? "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
-
Until now, it seems that most of common operating systems have been created using structured programming, and have exposed an API that is also structured. That is, the API is a bunch of global functions and structures. Class libraries, are really wrappers around API functions and structures. What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? For one thing, there would seemingly be seamless interaction between the OS API and any development libraries. Additionally, the commonly mentioned advantages of OOP would make an OO OS less buggy. So, is it feasible to make an OO OS of the same magnitude as Windows? "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
I think BeOS is OO but nobody uses it, although it is very stable and fast.:confused: I vote pro drink X|
-
Until now, it seems that most of common operating systems have been created using structured programming, and have exposed an API that is also structured. That is, the API is a bunch of global functions and structures. Class libraries, are really wrappers around API functions and structures. What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? For one thing, there would seemingly be seamless interaction between the OS API and any development libraries. Additionally, the commonly mentioned advantages of OOP would make an OO OS less buggy. So, is it feasible to make an OO OS of the same magnitude as Windows? "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
>> What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? << A processor with OO op-codes ;) seriously though, folks, the 7:30 show's always different than the 9:00 Be that as it may, I'd like to see an OS whose entire API is exposed as an OO library (it's still have to be written in structured language, I think, but the only points of entry would be OO). That's why I'm so excited about .NET - almost the entirety of the Windows OS is exposed in that gargantuan object model. So, hopefully no more ::SetWindowLong()'s in the middle of my nice, elegant C++ code ;P -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Hello, I'm doctor stupid. I'm going to take out your liver bones!" - Ralph Wiggum
-
Until now, it seems that most of common operating systems have been created using structured programming, and have exposed an API that is also structured. That is, the API is a bunch of global functions and structures. Class libraries, are really wrappers around API functions and structures. What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? For one thing, there would seemingly be seamless interaction between the OS API and any development libraries. Additionally, the commonly mentioned advantages of OOP would make an OO OS less buggy. So, is it feasible to make an OO OS of the same magnitude as Windows? "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
AmigaDOS :) Multi-tasking, object oriented(for the time), graphical OS that ran from single floppy drive. (And yeah, I still use my 'miggy for subtitling work) Jim Wuerch www.miwasoft.com Quote from my readme files: "This is BETA software, and as such may completely destroy your computer, change the alignment of the planets and invert the structure of the universe."
-
Until now, it seems that most of common operating systems have been created using structured programming, and have exposed an API that is also structured. That is, the API is a bunch of global functions and structures. Class libraries, are really wrappers around API functions and structures. What would be required to build an object-oriented operating system, with presumably a class library API? For one thing, there would seemingly be seamless interaction between the OS API and any development libraries. Additionally, the commonly mentioned advantages of OOP would make an OO OS less buggy. So, is it feasible to make an OO OS of the same magnitude as Windows? "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
Ever hear of Cairo? That was the code name for Microsoft's completely OO version of Windows. The idea for Cairo goes back to at least 1995, when NT 4 was under development. (Maybe even farther; I came into the Windows scene in 1995 so that's basically where my knowledge begins.) And since Cairo never came out.... it looks like MS is happy to keep on developing the Win32 API the same ol' way. --Mike-- http://home.inreach.com/mdunn/ "Make sure that if you are using a blow torch that you don't set anything on fire." -- Chris Maunder
-
Ever hear of Cairo? That was the code name for Microsoft's completely OO version of Windows. The idea for Cairo goes back to at least 1995, when NT 4 was under development. (Maybe even farther; I came into the Windows scene in 1995 so that's basically where my knowledge begins.) And since Cairo never came out.... it looks like MS is happy to keep on developing the Win32 API the same ol' way. --Mike-- http://home.inreach.com/mdunn/ "Make sure that if you are using a blow torch that you don't set anything on fire." -- Chris Maunder
Cairo was originally supposed to be a version of Windows NT which included many OO features, it was not intended to be an entirely OO OS. Later, MS declared that Cairo was a set of technologies, rather than a specific version of Windows. These technologies included things like DCOM, Explorer, and OFS (Object File System). Of all the things promised with Cairo, only OFS fell off the edge of the earth, and even then a lot of the OFS features have been put into NTFS5 (like reparse points).
-
I think BeOS is OO but nobody uses it, although it is very stable and fast.:confused: I vote pro drink X|
The problem is that there's no hardware support. There are a lot of "better ways" that never see the light of day, much less struggle to pull themselves fully into that light. BeOS may have stood a better chance if the guys writing it had gone the same route as Linux and made it open-source...