OSDev.org

Octacone wrote:@Structure

Very interesting! What solar system are you from?

Do tell, because I want to find out where I'm from; my parents wouldn't tell me! This is very much the sort of style I settled on for configurable window managers, but I think yours is cooler with the external handles. I don't intend to make floating windows for my OS, but it will definitely be all bright colors on black.

configurable window managers

Currently there are no on the fly applications.
Everything is compiled to disk image.
The windows are modular, configurable and themed.

all bright colors on black

I'm working on different themes to see how it looks.
Also just have a default font to print words nothing detailed.



Currently have a Development Kit which creates/loads/positions windows and creates application code to execute.

It's a WIP

different path than other OSs

Lots of applications

nakst wrote:Lots of applications

Wow! That looks amazing and I can see that now you have a much larger library of applications to put your UI to use

that's just 00bada55, nakst.

nakst wrote:Lots of applications

Looks amazing! Do you have a github link/iso image?

You have Bochs running in your OS? That's cool. And... "New Tab"? That looks like a feature I'd like!

nakst thinks he's so awesome with that fancy transparent border theme...

(But really, fantastic job on the UI! Everything looks great!)

Meanwhile, I am continuing to work on integrating Kuroko into ToaruOS:

8infy wrote:
Looks amazing! Do you have a github link/iso image?

https://gitlab.com/nakst/essence

I don't want to make an ISO image until it's ready for an alpha release.

klange wrote: nakst thinks he's so awesome with that fancy transparent border theme...

(But really, fantastic job on the UI! Everything looks great!)

Thanks

nakst wrote:https://gitlab.com/nakst/essence

At a quick glance, it looks like you have your own build system? (Or is it just a program that invokes make?)

Now I'm not alone!

Started to get Bare Bones working, with newlines!

AndrewAPrice wrote: At a quick glance, it looks like you have your own build system? (Or is it just a program that invokes make?)

Sort of. I never *intended* to make a build system, it just sort of happened. It calls out to `./configure` and `make` to build ported applications, but is able to build the components I've made by itself. Honestly, I'd much prefer it if I didn't need a build system, and I'm trying to reduce its complexity whenever I have the opportunity.

nakst wrote:Sort of. I never *intended* to make a build system, it just sort of happened. It calls out to `./configure` and `make` to build ported applications, but is able to build the components I've made by itself. Honestly, I'd much prefer it if I didn't need a build system, and I'm trying to reduce its complexity whenever I have the opportunity.

I've been disappointed with most build systems. It shouldn't be as complicated as it. I learnt C++ using Visual Studio where I'd create a project, and it gave me a main.cpp, and I could press the ▶ button and away it went. No configuring required. I built my own build system, because I want something that simple for my own hobby projects, and hopefully if I can compile an operating system with it, I can show the world it doesn't need to be complicated.

I don't need a super configurable system. Every .c, .asm, .cpp, .cc file in "source/" gets built everything unless I explicitly say ignore a file or subdirectory. If I'm a library I have a bunch of headers under "public/" that dependents can include, my projects have a metafile that says what libraries it depends on. That's all 99% of projects should need. The build order doesn't matter, so recursive dependencies between libraries is allowed, as long as everything gets linked together. At some point, I'd like to add unit test support.

Here are my metadata files for musl and libc++ which required a bit more of a complicated situation (mainly it expected some symbols defined, and I also deleted the irrelevant files, but I could do that with "ignore" rules.)

AndrewAPrice wrote:I've been disappointed with most build systems. It shouldn't be as complicated as it. I learnt C++ using Visual Studio where I'd create a project, and it gave me a main.cpp, and I could press the ▶ button and away it went. No configuring required. I built my own build system, because I want something that simple for my own hobby projects, and hopefully if I can compile an operating system with it, I can show the world it doesn't need to be complicated.

I don't need a super configurable system. Every .c, .asm, .cpp, .cc file in "source/" gets built everything unless I explicitly say ignore a file or subdirectory. If I'm a library I have a bunch of headers under "public/" that dependents can include, my projects have a metafile that says what libraries it depends on. That's all 99% of projects should need.

Sounds really cool! I tinkered with a build system (you remember, I get distracted by side projects) so I know it's normally quite complicated.

Only thing: How do you know which object file should end where? I mean: If you have several cpp/c/asm files and want to link the resulting object files to a complete program, you have to tell it explicitely, or not?

Greetings
Peter

I'd imagine the build system for an OS targetting a single hardware platform may well be much simpler than the build system for a program which has to figure out where each operating system or each Linux distro, gah! puts each and every one of the headers and libraries it needs. Gnu autoconf is a garbage fire on top of that. Modern build systems seem to be bad except for the ones which have that toxic open-source business model of pay-for-support. It's hardly open if its own makers are incentivized to make it difficult to use.