Programming Languages Will Become OSes

Anonymous Coward writes "A couple of months ago, at the Lightweight Languages Workshop 2002, Matthew Flat made a premise in his talk: Operating systems and programming languages are the same thing (at least 'mathematically speaking'). I find this interesting and has a lot of truth in it. Both OS and PL are platforms on which other programs run. Both are virtualizing machines. Both make it easier for people to write applications (by providing API, abstractions, frameworks, etc.)"

Comments

Happened before...

[meringuoid]

... the home computers of the early '80s didn't really have OSes, they had programming languages. You'd boot a BBC Micro and it would fire up into BBC Basic - with a few * commands for file system manipulation. Or you'd boot a Spectrum and you'd get the same: the name of the system and a prompt to begin typing your program.

Re:Happened before...

[-dhan-101]

your machine can already only use one language, machine language. fortunately, on top of this, humans have made a bunch of aliases and shortcuts for various commonly used sequences of operations, which developed into "higher level languages" like assembly and then C and then ...

if people want to use the machine (or OS), but don't like the language it understands, they will build translators from whatever made up language they like to the language the machine does understand (i.e. compilers and virtual machines).

Really?

[teetam]

While this may be conceptually true, there are different considerations involved when picking an OS and a language. A programming language is more like a tool that is selected because it is good for a particular operation.

A single machine could have multiple languages co-existing for different tasks. Some of these tasks require quick and dirty scripting, some require high performance and some other application programs might concentrate on object oriented features and such.

The operating system, on the other hand, is typically only one per machine and performance and stability might be the major considerations (other than compatibility with the popular applications around!)

Re:Smalltalk as OS

[tpr]

It so happens that I know a bit about Smalltalk so perhaps I can help a little.
Smalltalk was originally the entire system on the original hardware. Indeed, Dan Ingalls said back then (paraphrasing, I don't have the exact quote handy) "An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a programming language. There shouldn't be one".
The reality of commercial machines caused those of us interested in using Smalltalk to accept the limitations (and it must be said, benefits) of OSs. Even so, there have been several occasions where an attempt has be made to use Smalltalk as the entire system: the Active Book and the Momenta machines for example and more recently the Interval Research MediaPad (where the RTOS was written in Smalltalk).

These days I'd be inclined to 'soften' Dan's statement to something like "An OS is a collection of things underneath the language. There shouldn't be any way to tell the difference". That is to say, the language ought to be able to make full use of anything available without having to burden the programmer with wierd crap.

no, they won't

[g4dget]

UNIX had it right: put all the isolation stuff into the kernel, and put all the programming outside of it. It's called "modularity". Yes, you do pay a performance cost for it in some cases, but the benefits in terms of simplicity of design are tremendous. Determining what a process can do in UNIX is a fairly simple affair, as is limiting what it can do.

The best attempt at isolation at the language level is probably Java. The internal security architecture is rather complicated. And even after half a dozen years, Java still does not provide anything like "ulimit" and I wouldn't trust it to isolate arbitrary code within the same VM.

Re:Sure, the distinction is artificial/arbitrary..

[iankerickson]

No, it's because the term "OS" is commonly used to mean "OE" or "Operating Environment". Linux, being the kernel, is an OS. sh, and all the other shell tools are the OE. You don't have to use sh for your shell or init or any other shell tools, replacing them with other valid executables. A real world example of this is the FreeVMS project. In making a free/libre version of VMS, they don't want to duplicate the work of writing drivers and developing a kernel -- they want to focus on developing analogs of DCL, TPU, the Queue manager, etc. So they're using Linux or FreeBSD for their kernel and writing their own userland.

Same with Windows Explorer. The "My Computer" icon is part of Windows' operating environment. You can, believe it or not, use Windows without using Explorer (using the command line or a replacement shell like LiteStep). Windows just isn't designed or intended to have its core components replaced so easily. I think there was a court case about it... Anyhow, I used to run Windows NT with just cmd.exe as the shell, which was fun for a few weeks, figuring out how to set control panels from the shell. With cywin & GINA installed, you could put a nearly complete UNIX face on NT and still be able to run Win32 apps.

Sun is one the only companies I've seen distinguish between an OS and OE. They used to (still?) call it the Solaris Operating Environment, with the SunOS kernel as the underlying OS. The truth is nobody cares. _My_ eyes are glazing over just writing about this. My sincerest condolences to your disintigrating brain. But on the bright side, without the ambiguous use of technical terms, slashdot readers would have a lot less to argue about, and this site would degrade into a competitive festival of increasingly embarrassing personal confessions on sex, drug use, music, government secrets, scams, circumventing the law, satire, and other boring stuff like they have kuro5hin. If we should be so lucky.