Re: Curiosity: Microkernel implemented in Guile ?

[Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com>]

Agreed, Guile's design was widened. 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
>