RE: [ros-general] New to ReactOS

[Kevin Lawton]

Me too, Justin. 
After more than a couple of decades in 'software development' I find I can become
somewhat jaded by 'the same old thing', but there's still a few challenges to
be met if we look for them.  ;-)  
I guess I've always been 'turned on' by good engineering - novel and effective
solutions to creating anything, whether it be electrical mechanical or software. Like a
suspension bridge, or a large building which doesn't fall over in an earthquake, or a
space rocket which can actually carry more than enough fuel to reach orbit, or a steam
locomotive which can manage 25% efficiency, or well-written software. I think there is an
enormous gulf between 'hacking code' and 'software engineering'. 
I also think that any opportunity to show Microsoft 'how it should be done' is to
be welcomed. 
Maybe I need to subscribe to ros-theorising or ros-soapbox !     lol   
Keep right on meeting those challenges - there's life in us old dogs yet ! 
Kevin.   
    
>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: jwalsh(a)bigpond.net.au [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  Sent: 20 October 2005 05:07
>  To: ReactOS General List
>  Cc: Kevin Lawton
>  Subject: RE: [ros-general] New to ReactOS
>  
>  
>   
>  Right on Kevin, right on !!
>  I intuitively know you aren't trying to win. I like your style.
>  People of my generation don't like to be patronised, just challenged.
>  I have to admit I am not a spring chicken, just old and wasting away.
>  People like you give me that added burst of life. 
>  Please let me thank you. Lets make ReactOS something to boast about.
>  It makes me feel so good to have found ros-general.
>  Here the old and the young can come together with one mind.
>  
>  But a few (little) adjustments could be helpful.
>  One such adjustment would be a doorway to MinGW-Msys and to Earnie Boyd.
>  He is the guy to help all those "C" advocates.
>  The doorway should be named ros-programming.
>  The other should be named ros-users.
>  Perhaps another for ros-abusers (just kidding).
>  
>  Cheers and rosuccess
>  
>  Justin
>  ---- Kevin Lawton <kepla(a)btinternet.com> wrote: 
> >   Hey, Justin, I wasn't trying to 'win'
> > - didn't want to sound  
>  better or anything. 
> >   I just wanted to inject a point or two into the
> > discussion. 
> >  Anyway, thanks - the link is interesting. 
> >  I still think the same principle applies - use a high-level  
>  language where you
> want the emphasis on ease of development and 
>  maintenance but use a low-level language where speed and 
>  efficiency are paramount. What I do think is interesting is where 
>  a low-level language, like assembler, is used to produce small 
>  fast software - far more than strictly 'necessary' - resulting in 
>  high efficiency and an unexpected turn of speed. Like, for 
>  example, the concept of a GUI-based op system which will fit on a 
>  floppy disk. In other forms of engineering, electrical or 
>  mechanical for example, efficiency is highly desirable for 
>  economy in both energy consumption and materials usage. Software 
>  engineering doesn't currently seem to be following similar principles. 
> >   What I think would be really cool would be if
> > ReactOS was not  
>  just a Windows replacement, but a faster and more efficient 
>  Windows replacement. 
> >   Kevin.   
> >  
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: jwalsh(a)bigpond.net.au [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >  > Sent: 18 October 2005 14:36
> >  > To: ReactOS General List
> >  > Cc: Kevin Lawton
> >  > Subject: RE: [ros-general] New to ReactOS
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > Ok Kevin, you win.
> >  > How can I begin to answer you?
> >  > Except to say, take a look at where tha AIM group: Apple IBM and 
> >  > Motorola are going.
> >  > It looks like Wintel group Microsoft and Intel will not be far 
> >  > behind either.
> >  > 
> >  > So please take a look at what has been thrown away in 1996.
> >  > 
> >  > www.cs.uta.fi/kurssit/OPOK/smalltalk/Smalltalk%20Express/
> >  > 
> >  > Please download it. It's only about 3 MB compressed (in two files).
> >  > It is free non commercial and will do absolutley no damage I  
>  promise you.
> >   > Because it was designed for DOS it will call
> > the Windows API only 
> >  > very rarely.
> >  > In fact I ran  it in safe mode and I could access the hard disk, 
> >  > which is supposed to be impossible to do.
> >  > This version is probably limited to 256 colors so make sure you 
> >  > switch the display.
> >  > Then we can talk later about the relavance of 'C' and 'Assembler'
> >  > Regards and rosuccess
> >  > Justin
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > ---- Kevin Lawton <kepla(a)btinternet.com> wrote: 
> >  > > Yeah, okay, but . . .
> >  > > With C being a 'higher level' language than assembler it  
>  will
> always be
> >   > > easier for a group of humans to work on
> > a project in. You could 
> >  > take this
> >  > > further and use something like Java, though not for an 
> >  > op-system kernel as
> >  > > Java programs need something below them to run the run-time 
> >  > virtual machine.
> >  > > C is a good language for writing an op system in because that 
> >  > is why it was
> >  > > designed (by Kerningham and Ritchie - their book on C is still 
> >  > the best work
> >  > > of its kind). It was created to write the Unix op system in and the
> >  > > combination of high and low-level features will always make  
>  it ideal
> for
> >   > > such a task. In terms of generating
> > nice tight machine code 
> >  > when compiled, C
> >  > > is probably the best high-level language in this respect.
> >  > > Modern computers are so enormously powerful that most projects 
> >  > feel that it
> >  > > is unnecessary to use assembler for the extreme efficiency it 
> >  > offers - C is
> >  > > more than 'good enough'. But, when projects ARE written for 
> >  > modern machines
> >  > > using assembler we then start to see just how fast things can 
> >  > go. We might
> >  > > feel that the 'average' PC is plenty fast enough performing 
> >  > day-to-day tasks
> >  > > with an op system written in C and applications in Java or  
>  VB, and it
> >   > > probably is, but give it a chance to
> > run software written in 
> >  > good assembler
> >  > > and you can get quite a surprise. Even if we think we can spare 
> >  > it, those
> >  > > high-level language programs (incl op system) can perform 
> >  > nothing like the
> >  > > blistering performance you can get from really good assembler 
> >  > code. You also
> >  > > find that because assembler programming is so 'direct' then the 
> >  > resulting
> >  > > machine code tends to be far more compact than that  
>  generated from
> other
> >   > > languages. Smaller programs (op systems
> > included) use less  
>  room on disk,
> >   > > load faster into a smaller memory space
> > and tend to have 
> >  > shorter execution
> >  > > paths.
> >  > > It is all fine and dandy that ReactOS will be a working 'clone' 
> >  > of Windows
> >  > > but Windows is often criticised for being large and slow. What 
> >  > if ReactOS
> >  > > could achieve full Windows compatibility while being much 
> >  > smaller and faster
> >  > > ?
> >  > > Kevin.
> >  > > 
> >  > > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > > From: ros-general-bounces(a)reactos.org
> >  > > > [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Murphy, Ged
> >  > > > (Bolton)
> >  > > > Sent: 18 October 2005 08:13
> >  > > > To: 'ReactOS General List'
> >  > > > Subject: RE: [ros-general] New to ReactOS
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > jwalsh(a)bigpond.net.au wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > > > > Who uses assembler for serious anything these days?
> >  > > > <snip>
> >  > > > > If anybody from ros is really in need of assembler then
> >  > > > something is sus.
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Considering you can't build ROS without an assembler, something
> >  > > > must be sus.
> >  > > > If you look at the ReactOS kernel, you will find many asm files.
> >  > > > My point was that the vast majority is written in C and  
>  is
> generally
> >   > > > preferred.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Ged.
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > 
> >  >  
>  ************************************************************************
> > > >   > The information contained in this message or any
> > > > of its
> > > >  > attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
> > > >  > use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
> > > >  > privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
> > > >  > but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
> > > >  > addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
> > > >  > dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> > > >  > If you have received this message in error, please contact
> > > >  > postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
> > > >  > <mailto:[e-mail]> and then delete this message.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
> > > >  > producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
> > > >  > Further information can be found at www.exide.com
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > _______________________________________________
> > > >  > ros-general mailing list
> > > >  > ros-general(a)reactos.org
> > > >  > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> > > >  
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  ros-general mailing list
> > > >  ros-general(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general 
> > >   
> >  
> >  
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  ros-general mailing list
> >  ros-general(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general 
>