Experimental OS development using D

[Harry Vennik]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick replies.

In general, most mentioned already is the question 'why C instead of D for the microkernel?'. The
answer is that there is no OOP involved in the microkernel at all, and the added value of D would
probably be nothing there. If any advantages of using D also for the microkernel become obvious, I'll
likely change my mind, and indeed implement it in D too. Anyway, keep in mind: a micro kernel should
really be micro! It would only implement page level memory management, a scheduler and an IPC
meganism. The rest is up to the services.

@Alex: Very nice to hear there are more people with approximately the same idea. I haven't really
looked at your source yet, but I will soon. And yes, you got it right: PoC is short for 'Proof of Concept'.

@Lars: What do you mean to say by 'Source distributions would be so much more interesting with a
language as quickly compiled as D.'?

@Bjoern: Yes, I read the announcement of Tango just before I composed my initial post. Haven't really
looked what the lib is like yet, but I will. POSIX is probaly not much of interest, because it is a C
interface, and thus not OO. However, something like a POSIX compatibility library programmed on top
of the OO system may be done some day to make it possible to compile existing apps for the new OS. (I
know that is a real change of roles. With current OSs you'd rather code an OO-style framework on top
of POSIX.)

Regards,

Harry