Re: Curiosity: Microkernel implemented in Guile ?

[Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr>]

> Le 24 juin 2022 à 03:13, Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Agreed, Guile's design was widened.


Let’s be honest: it wasn’t widened, but shifted. I don’t think today’s Guile is a good fit for an extension language.

Regards,
Jean



> But I think we are talking about
> different "low-level", for Hurd, Guile can be used to write OS components,
> say, filesystem. However, except for GNU Mach, most OS components are
> implemented in userland, and Guile is good for that, this is what it's
> designed for.
> The "low-level" in my mind is to write GNU Mach part, which is not suitable
> for Guile.
> 
> BTW, I think Hurd people inclined to call Hurd as "multi-server OS", so
> when we talk about microkernel, I was thinking about something like GNU
> Mach or L4. :-)
> 
> Best regards.
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 06:08 Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Many folks shared great Scheme for lower-level. I think I have to clarify
>>> that I agree that Scheme is good for low-level, depends on
>> implementation.
>>> But we are talking about Guile, and Guile was not designed for that
>>> purpose, it's dedicated to extend C program, so the better choice is to
>>> extend a C microkernel with Guile. That is what it was designed for,
>>> originally.
>> 
>> In recent years the scope of Guile widened in that respect, so it’s very
>> suited to implement many more parts of the system than it was with Guile
>> 1.x — with Guile 3 it starts to compete in performance.
>> 
>> It might be suitable for many parts of the kernel nowadays.
>> 
>> And the Hurd is a good way to get low level with much fewer risks than
>> Linux kernel hacking.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Arne
>> --
>> Unpolitisch sein
>> heißt politisch sein,
>> ohne es zu merken.
>> draketo.de
>>