There has been a fair amount of research into QoS OS's, one of them being Cambridge University Nemesis Operating system. Unfortunately, it did not really go very far as it was notoriously slow and had little hardware support. It would be interesting to see this do better.... aas
Interesting comment. Check out the new extensions to the Haskell type system, though - some of these are pretty powerful. The disadvantage is that it takes quite a lot of type systems background to understand and program with these type systems. I do not want to start the typical comp.lang.functional static vs dynamic type checking, but I it's worth keeping in mind the benfits of both. Cayenne is also a in interesting language to look at. Coming back to design patterns, though - the opinion that design patterns are nasty hacks is worth spreading - this will yeild better languages, tools, more productivity and domain specific langauges... After all, we don't want to program *everyithing* in C. (ooh, controversial here on/.) Look forward to your reply, aas23
A couple of weeks ago John Vlissides took part in a debate at the POPL conference in Boston (Principles of Programming Languages), and although the academic community favours functional languages and is thus biased, a strong view was expressed that design patterns are prompted by the lack of appropriate language features (tools). Alternatively, you could view it as "getting round" the disadvantages of object oriented programming paradigm. Although I do not expect there to be any functional programmers around on/., I would be interested to hear arguments for straight C, i.e. procedural progamming. Thanks
Slashdot Mirror
There has been a fair amount of research into QoS OS's, one of them being Cambridge University Nemesis Operating system. Unfortunately, it did not really go very far as it was notoriously slow and had little hardware support. It would be interesting to see this do better.... aas
Interesting comment. Check out the new extensions to the Haskell type system, though - some of these are pretty powerful. The disadvantage is that it takes quite a lot of type systems background to understand and program with these type systems. I do not want to start the typical comp.lang.functional static vs dynamic type checking, but I it's worth keeping in mind the benfits of both. /.) Look forward to your reply, aas23
Cayenne is also a in interesting language to look at.
Coming back to design patterns, though - the opinion that design patterns are nasty hacks is worth spreading - this will yeild better languages, tools, more productivity and domain specific langauges... After all, we don't want to program *everyithing* in C. (ooh, controversial here on
A couple of weeks ago John Vlissides took part in a debate at the POPL conference in Boston (Principles of Programming Languages), and although the academic community favours functional languages and is thus biased, a strong view was expressed that design patterns are prompted by the lack of appropriate language features (tools). /., I would be interested to hear arguments for straight C, i.e. procedural progamming.
Alternatively, you could view it as "getting round" the disadvantages of object oriented programming paradigm.
Although I do not expect there to be any functional programmers around on
Thanks