A totally New OS with .NET Core on top


#21

Shalok,
You are reading my playbook.
If you took a look at the SII Annual Report you can see that I have had some good ideas. In the very beginning of my computer carear I worked at machine language and assembly levels.
It appears that .NET Core has been a major investment for Microsoft. It is starting to be in wide use. Yet interest in the important capability of interfacing of multiple OSs is not highly appreciated at lease at the interface level.
i.e. There does not be a specification that discusses and describes the minimum interface required from the OS.
It is possible to dig through GitHub but that is just a load of methods.
I’m sure Microsoft has a specification of the minimum methods.
They just didn’t start out one day, spend millions, and hope for a result.
Jim


#22

As far as the transcompiler to C#, it would also be capable of a translation to C++. The purpose of that might be to build the bit twiddling portions of the kernel. Yet I want to focus on C#. At my company SII we had an internal conflict between the OPL coders and the Apple advocates. That type of “religious” battle is not productive. That is why I want a very limited use of C++ where absolutely necessary. Probably, at the interrupt level and CPU type, although I intend to focus on the ARM architecture.

I have attached an example of the OPL code for RING’s OPL Compiler.

If you look at the “hat” names. this^is^his^name , they were easily and perfectly mapped to Camel Case for C#. thisIsHisName That worked perfectly! And readable.

Lots of other operations have been completed including translating OPL Intrinsics such as OPL’s $SIN to C# Math.Sin.

Arithmetic expressions were also accurately translated.


#23

Thanks for this post.
Such a nice Idea…


#24

I am beginning to spend more time on this idea, One puzzle to me is how the “team” that created the interface levels between .NET core, e.g. corefx in the GitHub, were able to work on the massive task without a formal definition of the “necessary and sufficient conditions” to create a complete working model of the solution.

I have difficulty accepting that this level of work was created away from Microsoft itself. It was no doubt a major undertaking. I have a business theory that it was programmed with direct employees.


#25

C# / .NET is an applications programming anguage. For writing operating systems you need a systems programming language such as C, C++ or Rust.

Wrong tool for the job.

The security problems we’re facing at the moment are linked to the fact that we are writing application programs using systems programming languages.


#26

However, one partial approach might be to have to implement a Garbage Collection generation that does no move any memory area. So,instead of G0, G1, G2 there is another Generation ssy, GX for a fun name.

The CLR now has an open source implementation that could be modified.

Would you be interested in working on this?

Jim .


#27

No, I am not.

The low level parts of an operating system should be written in Rust and the higher level parts could be written in C# or any other high-level application language.

There already exists an operating system written in Rust, namely Redox.


#28

DotNetHappy1

    October 26

No, I am not.

The low level parts of an operating system should be written in Rust and the higher level parts could be written in C# or any other high-level application language.

There already exists an operating system written in Rust, namely Redox.


.NET Foundation Website | Blog | Projects | Code of Conduct