Question about which tools to use, bugs, the best way to implement a function, etc should go here. Don't forget to see if your question is answered in the wiki first! When in doubt post here.
SatyaNarayan wrote:Remember when u go more close to hardware at that time u will need Assembly or inline assembly to communicate with hardwares. Becz C doesnot provides such facilities to communicate directly when u change status register, control register...etc..
By the way Assembly isnot too bad at all. It is also so cool if u understand it very well
Thanks for contributing something original and new to the discussion.
It's not as if this entire point has been hashed and rehashed continuously for 3 pages of posts.
I didn't mean to say you should use dynamic typing in kernel development. For a new language used for application development, dynamic typing should be there as an option.
I think I'll say I appreciate some of the more respectful and useful posts on this topic but I don't appreciate some of the egotistic and arrogant posts from some of the people on here.
god0fgod wrote:I didn't mean to say you should use dynamic typing in kernel development. For a new language used for application development, dynamic typing should be there as an option.
I think I'll say I appreciate some of the more respectful and useful posts on this topic but I don't appreciate some of the egotistic and arrogant posts from some of the people on here.
Again you have the choice there of a tradeoff in the amount of runtime code required - a pure dynamic language requires a massive runtime, a pure static language can require none. There's a slider to be set, and for kernel development most people try and set the slider somewhat towards the "static" end of the scale.
Sometimes dynamic features are needed for some reason and it's easier if the language includes it as an option.
For example you might need to store various objects in an array but you need the array to store any type or you need some indicator to a particular object of different types for some reason.
berkus wrote:As far as I know, Wirth's Oberon System is written in plain Oberon language without any assembly.
absolutely correct, but there are some places where so called "code procedures" are used, i.e. the machine code for the body of a procedure is inserted directly ...
