Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux -- Without Unix

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the is-turnabout-fair-play? dept.

Linux 180

Hubert Tonneau writes: "Once upon a time, Linus took GNU system, wrote a brand new kernel for it, and it was Linux. I did it just the other way round: I took Linux kernel, wrote a brand new system for it, and it is FullPliant. In very few words, Linux without Unix. This is the first system completely complying with free software's philosophy, because you can read it from the first line to the last one since all the code, including the dynamic compiler, the HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP3, patches repository and database servers, plus the remote Web configuration tool and the strong crypto proxy, fits in a single megabyte and is compiled on the fly. The first server running FullPliant can be accessed at: [this site]." Interesting.

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:"What's the point?" (2)

adolf (21054) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425146)

From what I've been able to see so far, this -is- an attempt to make Linux better.

Remember, Linux is just a kernel. No more, no less. It's all the GNU, X and other tools that make the UNIX-like userland experience what it is, and they can all pretty much run just as well with other kernels.

There is life beyond 1972-vintage UNIX (I hope).

Re:How is that INTERESTING? (2)

commandant (208059) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425152)

Funny, I thought he was focusing his creative efforts on Linux development. My God, even in the post itself, he says, "Linux without Unix."

What he's doing is making a new nest for Linux to rest in. I don't see why you have a problem with that. If you don't like FullPliant, don't use it. But don't knock it, and especially don't knock it when you don't know what you're saying.

A new year calls for a new signature.

Good practice for your communication skills (1)

HalB (127906) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425155)

To exercise your communication skills... Explain this to your boss on tuesday. 8')

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425157)

A: You apparently have no idea what a Camel Testicle Scraper gets paid (a CTSC is a very prestigous cert indeed.)

B: MCSE, I specifically don't hire them.

C: MCSE, CNE, CNA, A+, CLP, yadda yadda all well and good but when the Notes Server won't stay up for more than 12 hours and you have to deploy a 2000SQL, a 2000IIS and 3 dedicated workstations and your assistant's wife had a baby and you're going to Disney with your family (whoever they are) Camel Testicle Scraping looks good. They only work 10 hours a day.

D: I don't want anymore Sys Admin's out there.

E: I do like the part where I can surf for porn and call it "research"

F: I only got 15K more this year.

G: At the end of the month I still owe then $20 bucks b/c they are charging me rent since I sleep there.

H: Ha ha

I: What do you consider "raking it in?"

Re:intresting, but... (2)

Traser (60664) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425159)

well, linux is pretty cool man, but i grew up with DOS, gee, i wouldn't want to try something different...

The difference is I do use linux, and I do enjoy, no , it isn't the friendly DOS I grew up with, but I rather enjoy it. This Pliant think intrigues me, and I think I'll give it a try. Innovation and trying things that haven't been done before bring out new and interesting products. It is vital to all research and advancement that pure research be done for it's own sake - because it is cool.

Re:what does this accomplish? (5)

Muggins the Mad (27719) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425160)

> I have to admit, this just doesn't make sense.
> All this hard work I just can't see it going anywhere, its like dumping all the work (good or bad) and essentially starting over.

Just like Linus did by writing the Linux kernel instead of trying to improve the Minix kernel, you mean?

> I just cannot see how this can be done without huge backing from someone like Sun, Microsoft, or Apple.

I have difficulty seeing how this *could* be done with backing from a huge corporation.

A bunch of good programmers working together on something they think is cool can produce much better work than a bunch of programmers being continually ordered around by a marketting department.

GNU + Linux isn't the be all and end all of operating system design. None of the systems we have today are. We need people to continually try new ideas and come up with unfamiliar things.

- Muggins

First system complying with WHAT? (5)

Tony Shepps (333) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425163)

What philosophy, is it, exactly, that requires everything to be compiled on the fly?

Was it Kant that talked about interpreted code. Now, I believe Descartes hypothesized a proof for God based on the idea that self-modifying programs could not be construed as a perfect model of any single thing. And the Chinese talk about the severing of the mind-body relationship through the long-term contemplation of object orientation. And Adm. Grace Hopper lectured on the idea that through debugging it could be determined that the nature of man can always be proven flawed.
--

Re:You beat me to it... (1)

vaginux (264232) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425164)

try QNX [qnx.com] . aka " queer-nux" according to some, it also fits this stuff on a single floppy. also a gui. linux without unix would be like vaginux without va linux. in otherwords, pointless.

:::

boom. (1)

Mr804 (12397) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425166)

page looks like it got /.'ed.

I wish him and his project well.

Re:Extensible Languages (2)

alienmole (15522) | more than 14 years ago | (#1425167)

If the following lacks coherence or is overly long and rambling, that's 'coz it's 3am and I don't feel like editing it into an ironclad position paper.

Tell me what you consider an extensible language and I'll tell you why I don't think it's extensible enough.

C++ isn't a good example to use, since the level from which it starts is such that no matter how much you extend it, you can't get away from its basic closeness-to-the-machine. That's its strength, when you need it, but you don't always need it. (I'm a good C++ programmer and have developed commercial products with it, so I do have some basis for saying this.)

The criticism of C++ operator overloading is a separate discussion, really, and you have to examine the specifics of the criticism. I don't buy the "it's too powerful so it's confusing/dangerous" kind of argument - that's merely an argument against letting certain programmers loose with it. If one is against operator overloading in general, then you'd have to be against it in other languages like Haskell or even Smalltalk (where operators have names instead of symbols), and I haven't really heard that kind of general criticism. I think the problem a lot of people have with C++ is that it's just plain big and confusing - it has a steep learning curve to reach full competence, and features like operator overloading may appear somewhat "tacked-on". So I don't think the C++ example is really relevant in a discussion of extensibility in programming languages, since I see C++ as having special constraints which aren't faced by higher-level but lower-performing languages.

In general, I think operator overloading is an essential extensibility feature and should probably have its name changed to make it sound less like some kind of extreme measure. In any language in which you can define new data types, you ought to be able to define the operations on those types, and have the language be aware of the relationship between the types and operations. If you can't at least do that, then you're back to plain old procedural programming in FORTRAN/Pascal-original/C.

But extensibility is not just being able to define new classes of object, and the operations on those objects, although that kind of thing is a start.

There are many areas in which extensibility is conceivable and potentially desirable. One that has not been well-addressed is syntax extensibility. The C/C++ preprocessor is one of the most widely-used programming features in existence - take a look at any source code for Linux or GNU and this is quite obvious. However, there are well known problems with this mechanism, and some of those problems significantly limit the potential uses of preprocessor-like features. C-like preprocessors support extensions that don't conform to the language's syntax rules and don't really follow any grammatical-style rules of their own, for example. There have been some attempts at coming up with syntax extensibility which doesn't suffer from this problem, notably in Scheme; but in Scheme, the feature is still constrained by the basic everything-is-a-function-call design of the language.

It can be argued that syntax extensibility isn't necessary or desirable, but I think it's usually an argument from a position of never having had a good example of it. An interesting example of syntax extensibility could be found in the old Clipper database language, which had a very powerful preprocessor that many third-party companies used to create custom command sets, more powerful than the kind of thing that can be done in with C-style preprocessors. This was a very popular feature. However, that preprocessor still suffered from the same problems as the C/C++ preprocessor.

I would be willing to bet large sums of money that if a competent language became available which had useful and theoretically sound syntax extensibility capability, users would go crazy for it. For a comparison in a slightly different area, look at what's happening with XML - everyone and his dog is designing new mini-languages using XML. Some might criticize this or be unnerved by it, but it's filling a need, and even if many examples of XML-based languages are unwise or poorly designed, many are very useful.

Then there's the question of the limitations of existing extensibility features. For example, object-oriented languages which only provide single inheritance are self-limiting in terms of the designs that can be practically implemented in them. I'm not suggesting that traditional multiple inheritance is an essential feature in those environments: I think the problem is that both approaches are wrong. There's more of a future in the separation of interface and implementation required by environments like CORBA and COM, although CORBA also came from an objects-have-a-single-interface direction. From a type-theory perspective, it's obvious that data types can have more than a single interface, but it's also obvious that this doesn't mean that they have to share implementations. So you need the ability to define multiple interfaces on a type or class, and ideally the ability to reuse implementations somewhat independently. The only languages I'm aware of that let you do anything even remotely close to this are some of the functional languages, like Haskell. Interestingly, Java came close but didn't quite make it: it supports classes with multiple interfaces, but the semantics of combining interfaces is slightly broken, and the ability to reuse interface implementations is virtually nonexistent.

So I'm suggesting that many languages with alleged extensibility features actually have serious Achille's heels which limit the usefulness of those features.

Some might say that languages like Smalltalk are extensible. Superficially, that may seem true. But in a sense, they're the opposite of extensible: everything is an object and all operations are message sends, and that's all the compiler understands, syntactically. This makes it trivial to write compilers for the language, but doesn't make the language easier for ordinary humans to write and read. You can add object classes, but you can't build it up beyond the level it was designed to operate at. In this sense, I see languages like Smalltalk, and to a lesser extent, Scheme, as severely limited, rather than extensible. Some might consider this a perverse perspective, but it comes from experience and I can provide real world examples of problems that are difficult to solve in these languages, that can be handled by something as simple as, again, the C preprocessor.

Some of this is just the inevitable mismatch between theoretically-based languages, arising from various mathematical, logical, or computing science formalisms, which tend to be aimed at highly intelligent users in the sciences; and the needs of a broader mass market which usually has far more mundane concerns, including many relating to apparently extraneous issues like deployment, portability, configuration management etc.

The bottom line is that I think we're still in the most incredibly early stages of computer language development. That's probably because designing a really good computer language is an extraordinarily difficult task, and changing people's programming habits is even more difficult. But progress does happen, slowly. Languages like Java don't represent the state of the art in theoretical language design, but they do represent the slow trickling down of powerful theoretical features into languages that are in widespread use. But standard Java doesn't even support something as basic as first class functions or closures, so we have a long way to go.

Happy New Year!

Re:Ouch. (1)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425168)

and why would that be?

Re:VB Generates real code (1)

elflord (9269) | more than 14 years ago | (#1425169)

Well that's really clever -- you've left out the context in which I said it. Your rebuttal is completely baseless on the grounds that you're missing the context. Allow me to remind you -- The paragraph started with the words "pop quiz:". Suffice it to say that I was not referring to an open-book or computer aided pop quiz.

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (2)

RomulusNR (29439) | more than 14 years ago | (#1425170)

Accept, at least, this observation: that those who program computers make computers do what they want, and those who don't program computers do what the computers want them to do.

Certainly people should opt to be in the former group, in terms of the ends.

Re:Lisp a logical language? (2)

sugarescent (30924) | more than 14 years ago | (#1425171)

You guessed wrong, about as completely opposite as it gets. Function arity refers to typing a function by how many args it takes, which is useful when the function is overloaded (which LISP doesn't support, either).

If functions do different things, then name them different things. And as a reply already noted, the object system in Lisp (CLOS) supports overloading of methods (check out defmethod)

Wrong again. Think "currying".

Fine. Lisp doesn't have syntax for it. But it can be done. Easily, in fact.

Do me a favor, learn what I'm talking about before responding to it. Learn a little about Haskell or ocaml first perhaps? I'm really too tired to flame, but you would deserve it otherwise.

Sorry if I had questions or appeared ignorant. It happens when people are learning or when confronted with unfamiliar language (partial evaluation == currying? whatever!). Lisp has list comprehensions and has for some time. Check the SERIES package [sourceforge.net] if you want to see what I mean. Functional programming in Lisp! Amazing!

-sugarescent

Re:1 bottles of beer on the wall (1)

crucini (98210) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425175)

You see, the line before the last line (eh, is their a word for that in English?)...
Yes. The word is penultimate. From latin paene (almost) + ultima (last).

Re:You beat me to it... (1)

King of the World (212739) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425176)

Centralised configuration has been done before. It doesn't work as programs corrupt one thing and the failure trickles through the entire system (at the very least one broken bit of registry affects others).

Now having all the configuration data in one place is not necessary. Software can just access the configuration files spread throughout the system.

But this is labourious and far too much work due to the inconsistencies in plain text configuration files. They have a million different syntaxes, and any configuration program needs to learn each one. They need prior knowledge about the piece of software they're configuring.

An XML DTD will eventually replace them, and then unified configuration might be possible. An adequate XML DTD could be self-describing and the configuration application wouldn't have know what it's configuring.

Nice idea, kid. I can see you're an ideas man. Ho-ho.

Re:A small question (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425177)

About VB:

Everyone seems to dis VB cause they think its slow, but nowadays, with VB 6 and higher, its approaching speeds of compiled C++ code.

With .NET bits here, and under testing with Visual Stuidio.NET, its clear that the common runtime for all languages eliminates any noticeable difference in speed between any of the compiled languages.

intresting, but... (1)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425180)

that's pretty frikin cool man... but is something like this gonna be usable? I mean, people into linux are usually familiar with UNIX and know its ins and outs pretty well... But with this type of thing, even if it is simple to learn, might people want not to use it because it is unfamiliar?

And also, what practical purposes does a system like this serve? JDW

No better (3)

cd_Csc (151701) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425181)

Looks like it's susceptible to the Slashdot Effect... but this time I wouldn't expect any mirrors.

Re:More than just an OS (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425182)

It appears to also be a programming language. It's pretty interesting, too, as it proclaims to be somewhere between the efficiency of C (which he likens to machine logic) and the ease of use of Lisp

So, when is someone going to use this approach to finally write EMACS-OS directly welded to the linux kernel?

Re:Why not GNU Pliant? (2)

Datafage (75835) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425183)

Maybe he wants to maintain independence, retain copyright of work he created, and other such frivolties? With all the complaints about Microsoft absorbing everything, why should the FSF take control of all things Linux? I mean, the Microsoft absorbees get lots of support for their product, if it was good enough, and a boost from the brand recognition. This is the same thing.

-----------------------

Another location (4)

pc486 (86611) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425184)

Here is another offical homepage (it's just not up updated to the last second): http://pliant.cx/ [pliant.cx]

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

Vector Inspector (35504) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425185)

The point is to create a complete OS using the linux kernel, not just the huge collection of GNU tools we all know and love.

Example
If you wanted to recompile a whole linux distribution, you'd have a lot of compiling to do...
But under FullPliant, all you'd have to do is compile the kernel then compile the OS.
Sweeeet.

Are you god?

Re:Another location (2)

Mr. Jaggers (167308) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425186)

Actually that is simply release 44 [pliant.cx] , running at pliant.cx; there is really only one official homepage.
Release 53 [pliant.cx] (the current version) is what Hubert is presenting at the location in the original story.

They are both at pliant.cx.

/bin/pliant ? (2)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425187)

A warning for those that are yet to install it.. and that are as careless as me.

This thing installs in prefix "/". There are two alternative installation directories being /usr/local and $HOME.

Just untar the file to prefix/pliant (where prefix is /, /usr/local or $HOME) and then follow the instructions.

Re:No better (1)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425188)

Looks like it's susceptible to the Slashdot Effect... but this time I wouldn't expect any mirrors.

Since everyone who's trying Pliant is essentially mirroring it (the default site for the http server is the same as their homepage [pliant.cx] ) I wouldn't worry too much ;-).

Sing to a Paul Simon song (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425189)

still /.ed after fity- posts

Re:You beat me to it... (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425192)

Imagine having all programs on your system store all their configuration information in one consistent place - or just one place for systemwide stuff and one place for each user's local configs. Imagine if all the configuration files had the same format.

I.E. The Windows95/98 Registry???

Score: -1, Troll



---There is no spoon....---

Re:A small question (1)

elflord (9269) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425195)

Everyone seems to dis VB cause they think its slow, but nowadays, with VB 6 and higher, its approaching speeds of compiled C++ code.

And the java advocates will tell you that java is "almost as fast as C++". I'll believe it when I see it. The difference with C++ is that you can profile it and optimise the performance critical chunks of code until they're as fast as C. In fact using tricks like reference counts, you can sometimes make it faster. I'd agree that the slower languages (compile-to-vm) are fast enough for a lot of things, but it's dishonest to call them as fast as C++ or C.

Pop-quiz: how many CPU instructions does function x in VB (or java or eiffel or Smalltalk or perl ... ) use ? What does the program look like when converted to assembly ? This is the kind of question that one can often answer very quickly in C++ or C code, and is impossible to answer with the other languages.

Re:You beat me to it... (1)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425197)

spoken like a man whose registry has never been corrupted. I could tell you stories....

Seems slow (1)

detach (223577) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425201)

I'm not going like "damn I expect it to be blazin" but the site seems pretty freakin slow from Singapore. It's either the link or the server itself. I'm having like lots of read timeouts.

Anyway it looks like the TCP/IP stack needs some serious reworking. "TCP connections used: 73/188"

Plus some CPU optimisations.

I'll be pretty keen to try it out if I could. Maybe make it the next big "floppy router" thingie.

Re:How is that INTERESTING? (1)

macx666 (194150) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425203)

Easily. The server (as of writing) has had over 10,000 hits for it's HTTP engine being started today. See the stats [pliant.cx] for yourself. With 188 max HTTP connections, it is currently at 155 (as of page load). Such a creation serving up all these pages in so little time (thanks to the /. effect) and while the speed is crawling, the server has not crashed. I find this very intresting. I must admit, this is an excellent channel (/.) to publicize any new creation, and thus the imfamous /. effect is self inflicted...

Macx

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425204)

You dont spend days programming this kinda stuff for it to "exist."

Release-50 mirror site (1)

Vamphyri (26309) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425205)

zhar.net [zhar.net]

Vam

1 bottles of beer on the wall (1)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425206)

Now, the first program I looked at (being the beer program) contains a small error.

You see, the line before the last line (eh, is their a word for that in English?) not counting newlines will print "1 bottles of beer on the wall..."

function beer n arg Int n; var Str bot if n = 1 bot := " bottle" else bot := " bottles" if n = 0 console "No more bottles of beer on the wall!" eol else console n bot " of beer" console " on the wall, " n bot " of beer." eol console "Take one down, pass it around." eol if n > 1 console n-1 bot " of beer on the wall..." eol eol beer n-1 beer:100

An improved version would be (mind you, I have not compiled this):

function beer n arg Int n; var Str bot if n = 0 console "No more bottles of beer on the wall!" eol else if n = 1 bot := " bottle" else bot := " bottles" console n bot " of beer" console " on the wall, " n bot " of beer." eol if n > 1 if n = 2 bot := " bottle" else bot := " bottles" console n-1 bot " of beer on the wall..." eol eol beer n-1 beer:100

Re:1 bottles of beer on the wall (1)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425207)

So slash doesn't like the pre tag eh,

Now, the first program I looked at (being the beer program) contains a small error.

You see, the line before the last line (eh, is their a word for that in English?) not counting newlines will print "1 bottles of beer on the wall..."

function beer n
arg Int n; var Str bot
if n = 1
bot := " bottle"
else
bot := " bottles"
if n = 0
console "No more bottles of beer on the wall!" eol
else
console n bot " of beer"
console " on the wall, " n bot " of beer." eol
console "Take one down, pass it around." eol
if n > 1
console n-1 bot " of beer on the wall..." eol eol

beer n-1

beer:100

An improved version would be (mind you, I have not compiled this):

function beer n
arg Int n; var Str bot
if n = 0
console "No more bottles of beer on the wall!" eol
else
if n = 1
bot := " bottle"
else
bot := " bottles"
console n bot " of beer"
console " on the wall, " n bot " of beer." eol
if n > 1
if n = 2
bot := " bottle"
else
bot := " bottles"
console n-1 bot " of beer on the wall..." eol eol
beer n-1
beer:100

Precompiling your application (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425208)

It seems that instead of compiling a program, you "precompile" it, but that is optional.
If your application source code gets long, or calls modules that are not precompiled in the PDEE, the application may get very long to start. If such a case, the clear solution is to precompile it, which means creating of kind of executable that will be fast loaded instead of recompiling everything each time the application is started. For most applications, this will not require to change anything in the source code of your application: only the command line used to start the application as to be extended."

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

VFVTHUNTER (66253) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425212)

That already exists, and its called FreeBSD.

cd /usr/src/sys; make world

I like you man! (1)

xynopsis (224788) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425213)

go unix!

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (1)

cronik (196639) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425215)

But then again compare those kids to most of the idiots out there calling themselves "Computer Professionals" (and I think most people are idiots, most slashdotters {is that an acceptable mangeling of the en. language} excepted).

And you should try to get old compaq's to run linux (and X and esd ...) ;)

Don't discredit people because of their age. Discredit them 'cause they're idiots.

VB Generates real code (2)

weloytty (53582) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425219)

>>how many CPU instructions does function x in VB (or java or eiffel or Smalltalk or perl ... ) use ? What does the program look like when converted to assembly ? This is the kind of question that one can often answer very quickly in C++ or C code, and is impossible to answer with the other languages. <<

Ummmmm, actually, saying that you cant get at the disasm of VB code isnt true. You can compile VB5+ to native code, include debug info, and fire it up in your favorite debugger. Its regular old win32 code.

(It is also my favorite way to debug MTS components that die--just create a dump of the process, load it up in WinDBG and have at it <g>)
For example,

Private Function AddItUp()

Dim x As Integer
x = 10 + 15
AddItUp = x

End Function

Translates to:

Form1::AddItUp:
00401A6F 55 push ebp
00401A70 8BEC mov ebp,esp
00401A72 51 push ecx
00401A73 51 push ecx
00401A74 68C6104000 push offset ___vbaExceptHandler
00401A79 64A100000000 mov eax,fs:[00000000]
00401A7F 50 push eax
00401A80 64892500000000 mov dword ptr fs:[0],esp
00401A87 6A28 push 28h
00401A89 58 pop eax
00401A8A E831F6FFFF call VB@TEXT
00401A8F 53 push ebx
00401A90 56 push esi
00401A91 57 push edi
00401A92 8965F8 mov dword ptr [ebp-8],esp
00401A95 C745FCB0104000 mov dword ptr [ebp-4],offset __imp___CIexp+3Ch
00401A9C 8B450C mov eax,dword ptr [AddItUp]
00401A9F 832000 and dword ptr [eax],0
00401AA2 66C745DC1900 mov word ptr [x],19h
00401AA8 668B45DC mov ax,word ptr [x]
00401AAC 668945D4 mov word ptr [ebp-2Ch],ax
00401AB0 C745CC02000000 mov dword ptr [unnamed_var1],2
00401AB7 8D55CC lea edx,[unnamed_var1]
00401ABA 8D4DE0 lea ecx,[AddItUp]
00401ABD E88EF6FFFF call @__vbaVarMove
00401AC2 68D31A4000 push offset $L62
00401AC7 EB09 jmp $L57
$L35:
00401AC9 8D4DE0 lea ecx,[AddItUp]
00401ACC E885F6FFFF call @__vbaFreeVar
00401AD1 C3 ret
$L57:
00401AD2 C3 ret
$L62:
00401AD3 8D75E0 lea esi,[AddItUp]
00401AD6 8B7D0C mov edi,dword ptr [AddItUp]
00401AD9 A5 movs dword ptr [edi],dword ptr [esi]
00401ADA A5 movs dword ptr [edi],dword ptr [esi]
00401ADB A5 movs dword ptr [edi],dword ptr [esi]
00401ADC A5 movs dword ptr [edi],dword ptr [esi]
00401ADD 33C0 xor eax,eax
00401ADF 8B4DF0 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-10h]
00401AE2 64890D00000000 mov dword ptr fs:[0],ecx
00401AE9 5F pop edi
00401AEA 5E pop esi
00401AEB 5B pop ebx
00401AEC C9 leave
00401AED C20800 ret 8

Now, we can argue that the code does too much for you, (or to you, depending on how you feel), but it IS real code.

Oh no, not another one! (3)

zxSpectrum (129457) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425220)

They claim they are trying to make you a programmer. This page [pliant.cx] describes their .page-format, as an alternative to html.

Pity they haven't understood what (proper) html is about. They've gone and created this visual, contextless (or meaningless, if you will) markup-language, which is converted to equally rotten html. They also claim for "dynamic" pages, which, as I see it is a rather poor excuse for limited, and limiting server-side scripting.

From my point of view, they've tried reinvent the wheel as a square. For instance, from theirwebsite [pliant.cx]

Pliant programs always run in the compiler itself, which compiles on the fly. Thus, a program can ask to compile another piece of code at any time (equivalent to the 'eval' instruction in many interpreters), or free some compiled code (a compile function is a data). All of this gives great flexibility.

Ain't this just a poor way of saying "A Just-in-Time-compiler is about the only thing we'll let you work with"? Just my NKr. 02

"How is it interesting?" (2)

evanbd (210358) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425221)

OK moderators, forgive me, but it is a VALID question. I don't really know enough about what he's done to know more than it looks like he rewrote everything really small and compact and (presumably) efficient. That's cool. Now what? The site seems slashdotted, so would someone mind telling me what's great here? I just don't think enough of us understand well wnough what was done to see how it's cool in detail greater than what I said above. So please, enlighten us. Thanks.

Re:You beat me to it... (2)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425222)

I've been toying about with the idea of a standard API to open, read and write configuration files. Then people could use the architecture most suitable for thier particular situation, be it a memory resident registry-like system, or be it configuration files scattered all over the drive. The only difference is that people could make choices concerning performance/volatility tradeoffs.

A simple example of how this could be done would be something akin to a symbolic link which is really a dynamic file. You can open it, read from it, and hopefully even write to it in a limited capacity. The libary would translate these actions to and from the desired configuration changes... perhaps smiting you for syntax errors in the file layout (send the program an error that the file is read-only or something)

A bit like /proc only scattered all over the drive. They look like a bunch of text files, you can write to them, but they're not what they appear.

eh? (1)

wfrp01 (82831) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425223)

Sounds like you're talking about the Windows Registry.

Homogeniety creates more problems than it solves. Diversity has it's own problems, but gives us all something to argue about. It sort of sounds like you're wishing that world of computing will coelesce into some kind of perfect crystaline unity. It won't. Not ever. Thank goodness.

If you want to make the world a better place, find something bite sized to work on, and chew on it.

This is very interesting (1)

localroger (258128) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425224)

Of course the main link is /.ed but you can get into the release 44 site and see what the ideas are behind the language. Does this remind anyone else of Forth?

This may be exactly what I need for some embedded applications work I will be doing in the future. I am sick to death of dealing with M$ crapware but simply too overworked to tackle the near-vertical learning curve necessary to get into *nix. This could be the short path to a reliable embedded environment.

The thing I wonder about is, will the Linux drivers for various devices work with the Pliant shell OS? This is what would make this small environment practical, since a major obstacle lately has been future product support when hardware compatible with the software becomes unavailable. I have several apps running Windoze 3.11 that won't work in 9x or NT unless they are partially rewritten, and as long as at least some hardware of all relevant types is supported under Linux it has appeared to be a very interesting alternative. But the learning curve! And I all my fscking projects are due last week! I am really looking forward to the server coming back up so I can take a closer look at this thing.

OT: English (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425225)

Just FYI, the name for the thing before the last thing is second-to-last, or next-to-last. Ex: in the next-to-last line, blah blah blah.

mod parent up. (1)

erotus (209727) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425226)

Some good points you've made here. This 'Pliant' software shows just how versatile the Linux kernel is.

Re:You beat me to it... (1)

Kreeblah (95092) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425227)

> Imagine having all programs on your system store all their configuration information in one consistent place - or just one place for systemwide stuff and one place for each user's local configs.

It's called the Windows registry . . .

more stats (1)

millette (56354) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425228)

Total memory on this system: 188 MB

Memory consumed by this Pliant process: 13 MB

Memory consumed by other processes and kernel: 32 MB

Memory still available: 143 MB

That's the new server actually. So it isn't so bad *hehe*

More than just an OS (2)

electricmonk (169355) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425229)

It appears to also be a programming language. It's pretty interesting, too, as it proclaims to be somewhere between the efficiency of C (which he likens to machine logic) and the ease of use of Lisp (which he likens to human logic). You can find the details at the philosophy [pliant.cx] section of his site.

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425230)

Oh yeah we're raking in the dough. I make less than a Camel testicle scraper (per hour that is)

Re:eh? (2)

Phroggy (441) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425231)

Noooo, not the Windows Registry. More like the Preferences folder on a Macintosh. If one app's settings get corrupt, you just trash that file and the program rebuilds it from defaults automatically. With Windows, you can corrupt the entire database, and there's really no way to fix it (you can restore a backup, but not fix it).

--

Re:Defeats the damn purpose! (1)

Solidus Fullstop (254873) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425232)


I don't think there's any reason to be so insulting. I made a mistake, in my haste. I *meant* to say: " ...stripping it down to the kernel ". pardon me. my point still stands, correction included.



Solidus Fullstop, Esq.

hmm (1)

XO (250276) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425233)

I think the whole point of this, though I haven't been to the website, since it's /.'d, is to show that a kernel is not a complete system. We all know this, but it doesn't really sink in, until someone strips away all the Unixisms. Someone could build OS/2 atop the Linux kernel, someone could build EXPLORER.EXE atop the Linux kernel, someone could do anything they wanted, using Linux -- not using Unix. Obviously, there are Unixisms in the kernel, but these Unix metaphors are not necessary. This might be the type of development that a lot of people could get into - people who want to develop systems.. but don't / can't start all the way back at square 1. Given a rock solid, proven foundation to work with, you can just get up and start coding something.

Re:what does this accomplish? (1)

minusthink (218231) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425234)

Do you also disapprove of writers who write novels and plays instead of instructions for stereos? Or shake your head at a painter who paints canvases instead of houses?

This is a good thing, despite how practical it is. Any (new/innovative) development in the CS field is good, despite its applicability.

Let those who love the field and have passion do what they want, practical or not. The corporate world will supply 'practical' uses.

Just my thoughts.


--
minusthink [Code poet or super hero? (you decide)]

Re:intresting, butİİİ (1)

vawlk (14842) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425239)

>People who don't want to try new things generally stick with Windows

C'mon now...using windows has nothing to do with trying new stuff or not. Just because you don't choose to use....ah nevermind

Defeats the damn purpose! (1)

Solidus Fullstop (254873) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425250)


Because the kernel was written from scratch, Linux is technically not Unix but a new operating system .

Nonetheless, short of replicating the code from BSD, Linux owes much of its conceptual and architectural design principles to the example of the BSD. At the same time, Linux has been careful to avoid mistakes the BSD has made. And finally, in its commitment to portability and simplicity, Linux has carried the torch, lit by the fathers of the original Unix, farther than any other systems. The legacy of BSD and other Unix-bases operating systems proved valuable resources and inspiration for the development of Linux. To strip the kernel is just plain foolishness!


Solidus Fullstop, Esq.

Re:A small question (2)

localroger (258128) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425251)

Firstly:

Starting with 4.0, VB isn't interpreted any more. It is compiled, and while it isn't as well optimized as C it is pretty durn fast.

Secondly:

The situation with Pliant is a little more complex. It is a lot closer to Forth than a P-coded language like VB 3.0 and back, QBasic, or old-style Pascal. It has two kinds of module, both of which it seems you can compile yourself; the low level modules are compiled with an optimizing compiler that will, when it is finished, make them every bit as wicked fast as C. These modules actually become part of the language for future use purposes. (Forth? Anybody else reminded of Forth here? Except you couldn't compile new low-level functions for Forth, and you apparently can for Pliant.) Things at high levels of abstraction are built with these low-level modules, which doesn't cost much in performance because such code usually isn't very optimized anyway. The version 44 site [pliant.cx] isn't /.ed and has plenty of info on the language's design philosophy.

As I posted elsewhere I find this very interesting, and will be waiting with bated breath for the server to clear. Oh, and FYI it hasn't crashed, though it's very slow. Another monument to the solid design of the Linux kernel, I'd guess.

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

ekidder (121911) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425252)

Well, you don't maybe. I've written plenty of complicated things just because. Why not ask the creator?

Re:You beat me to it...Aegis/DomainOS (1)

aixguru (267717) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425253)

There was such a thing a few years back. You could guess at the command line options and be right. It was incredibly consistent. The authors obviously knew unix and wanted to start all over with a good design. Graphics were fast too cause it didn't need X11. And good filesharing w/o NFS. Had a cool editor build into the windowing system. It was called Aegis/DomainOS. It was from Apollo computer in Chelmsford, MA before HP bought them and killed it. And it used to scream in 4MB. If you wanted to run the cool gui debugger (unheard of at that time) you needed about 8MB. They started adding Unix stuff to it around the time HP bought it and it got slow and ugly. But it WAS COOL. see comp.os.apollo.

Re:what does this accomplish? (1)

minusthink (218231) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425254)


::applause::
--
minusthink [Code poet or super hero? (you decide)]

Don't Point, it's not polite (5)

fm6 (162816) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425255)

I'm sure Linus Torvalds probably heard some comments like this when he was originally working on building the first Linux kernel.
What's your point? That LT explained himself, and now nobody ever has to explain themselves ever again?

Anyway, there's a big fallacy in this whole discussion. Everybody seems to think that LT woke up one day and said "Eureka! (My kernel work) + (GNU Project) = A NEW OS !" That's not what happened. For one thing, GNU always had their own kernel [gnu.org] (althougth they've taken their sweet time finishing it!). For another thing, LT was never a big fan of most of the GNU software (in this article [linuxworld.com] he expresses admiration for GCC, but attitudes ranging from indifference to absolute disgust with everything else).

The simple fact is that LT wrote a simple POSIX-compliant kernel for his own private purposes -- mainly self-education. It was the viral marketing that he unintentionally started by giving the source to his friends that established Linux+GNU as a new OS. I once heard him say he was more shocked by the 100th copy of Linux than the 1 millionth!

That being said, it might well be interesting and useful to create a new "OS" based on the Linux kernel. "Completely complying with free software's philosophy" strikes me as a rather silly motivation, but Tonneau does seem to have done some interesting work that bears further discussion. Is anyone going to comment on FullPliant's unique features, or is everybody stuck on Religious Flamewar mode?

__________________

Re:what does this accomplish? (3)

Squid (3420) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425256)

GNU + Linux isn't the be all and end all of operating system design. None of the systems we have today are. We need people to continually try new ideas and come up with unfamiliar things.

Heresy! Burn him at the stake!

Interesting, here are similar technologies (5)

JordanH (75307) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425257)

Without trying to detract from Pliant, this reminds me a lot of the Self project.

Interesting links on Self can be found here [dmoz.org] .

Where Pliant syntax is discussed [pliant.cx] , it is said that it is original because "The Pliant parser is original in that it doesn't rely on an automaton derived from a grammar. It is simpler, but more customizable and therefore much more powerful. "

I'd like to point out that the parsing extensibility of Pliant can be found in the Forth language and I believe that Rebol [rebol.com] may also have some of these advantages. The language Lua [puc-rio.br] also comes to mind as a language with syntactic extensibility.



---

Thanks a lot (3)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425258)

Thanks a lot, Hubert. I was all ready to sit down and actually clean my desk of about two years' worth of crap, and then you come along with this hare-brained idea that dares to be different.

Needless to say, the desk will remain uncleaned tonight, while I figure out how to get the HTTP server running :)

Who died and made ICANN boss? Support OpenNIC [unrated.net] .

Re:Show me a site you designed. (1)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425259)

The first rule of web design is plagarism. I would be *flattered* if you ripped off my designs! ^_^ Feel free:

http://www.coredata.net [coredata.net]
http://www.furinkan.net [furinkan.net]
http://www.harringtoncc.org/ [harringtoncc.org] (This one's a little out of date. They may have changed it a little, but the original design is mine.)
http://www.kennethwyatt.com [kennethwyatt.com] - The art is Mr. Wyatt's, the site design is mine.

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425260)

If you target your job niche correctly and can, you get all the perks, bennies and *pay* of system administration jobs, and very few of the headaches as a dedicated 'webmaster'. I'm the only member of the networking staff at my company who's *not* required to be on call once a week. ^_^

Re:Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (2)

BinxBolling (121740) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425261)

The simple fact of the matter is that programmers aren't the only technically comptent people who use computers. The idea that *everyone* should *have* to program all the time to fit into this guy's rather skewed world view is ridiculous!

Where does he actually say this?

Answer: Nowhere.

The goal stated on the philosophy page is to provide a smoother path into programming so that anyone can become a programmer. Not to require everyone to become a programmer.

The fact is, despite enormous amounts of effort that have been put into building user interfaces that will put power and flexibility into the hands of nonprogrammers, these interfaces still provide only a fraction of the power that programmers enjoy. An approach that lowers the barriers to "programmer-hood" may prove to be a more fruitful path to putting real utility into the hands of the common person.

The goal isn't to have the average person writing applications from scratch. The goal is to make it possible for the average person to adjust the functioning of existing applications to better suit their needs, to write small scripts that automate common tasks, etc.

Whether or not this is an attainable goal is another question entirely, but I certainly can't fault the guy for trying.

Re:How is that INTERESTING? (5)

Pish Tosh (266555) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425262)

"The greatest danger to good computer science
research today may be excessive relevance . . .
[C]ommercial pressure . . . will divert the
attention of the best thinkers from real
innovation to exploitation of the current fad,
from prospecting to mining a known lode"
-- Dennis Ritchie
Communications of the ACM, August, 1984

oops (1)

vavenger (177469) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425266)

"The first server running FullPliant can be accessed at: [this site]."

It's also the first server running FullPliant to be Slashdotted. :^)

"What's the point?" (5)

Phroggy (441) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425269)

I'm seeing some posts here from people saying "What's the point of this? Who would use it? Why don't you just use your talents to make Linux better instead?"

I'm sure Linus Torvalds probably heard some comments like this when he was originally working on building the first Linux kernel. Why not just use DOS, or Minix, or save up some money and buy a real computer, or whatever?

If nobody ever did anything revolutionary, where would we be?

--

Re:intresting, but... (1)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425271)

// But with this type of thing, even if it is simple to learn, might people want not to use it because it is unfamiliar?

Isn't that the same excuse most people use not to use Linux in the first place?
I should know, I'm guilty as charged!

Nice try... (1)

PureFiction (10256) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425273)

But it looks like the TCP/IP stack needs some work.

splat!

To bad he didnt mention what hardware it was running on...

Re:oops (1)

CodeMunch (95290) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425275)

Yeah...as usual, the inconsiderate bastards at /. Didn't mirror it. Stick the pages dispersed on 4 or 5 clustered NT boxen & the first server running pliant should be able to handle the load :)

--Clay

If nothing else, it's useful conceptually... (2)

cduffy (652) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425277)

...as a demonstration for the folks who insist that Linux's command-line heritage condemns it to unusability. The existance of this project demonstrates that even in the (outlandish) event that any OS with a strong CLI is doomed, linux (as a kernel) still is useful.

Also, it's a nifty demonstration of pliant as a programming language.

Anyhow, you have no right to tell someone else what to code.

Programmers and the Rest of the World (TM) (5)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425282)

According to the Pliant Documentation, the creator wants to use his project to turn everyone into programmers so that they'll support FSF ideals.

This logic is a little twisted for me, but okay...

The simple fact of the matter is that programmers aren't the only technically comptent people who use computers. The idea that *everyone* should *have* to program all the time to fit into this guy's rather skewed world view is ridiculous! Take myself for example: I'm a graphical artist. Like many /. readers, I make webpages for a libing. While I *occasionally* crank out some PHP or some Javascript, the vast majority of my 'technical expertise' lies in the areas of understanding the intricacies of dozens of art, paint and drawing programs. I know what minor differences HTML code will display in certain browsers. I can administer Apache, IIS, and a slew of other web servers. I'm competent to install and administer any number of server OS's. I'm even competent enough to make choices between certain operating systems for certain tasks and requirements.

I understand the basics of how machine languages work on different processors and why programming languages behave as they do, *but* If I had to *once* sit down and crank out an application in Java or C, I would be lost. I don't have *time* to hack. I'm busy with the rest of my highly technical job.

The idea that you have to be a programmer to be technically competent is ludicrous, but one all too many hackers view as sacrosanct. Give it up, geeks.

Re:Defeats the damn purpose! (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425283)

In the old inmortal words.......

You Sir, are a true idiot.

Linux carefull to avoid BSD's mistakes....

Not carefull enought, as it was an inferior VM, SCSI subsystem, and IP stack....

Not to mention general inmature code.

secondly, HE'S NOT STRIPPING THE KERNEL.
that's the ONLY part he's using.
He's basing his os on the linux kernel, but supplying from scratch everything else.

Re:You beat me to it... (2)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425284)

well not all the things you want but more

plan9.bell-labs.com

try reading about plan9 or inferno
.oO0Oo.

Lisp a logical language? (3)

blamario (227479) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425285)

I took a quick look at the Pliant documentation and I can tell two thngs so far:

1. This project took a lot of work (15 years is the claim).

2. And it was probably all in vain.

If the author took at least one of those 15 years to take a look at existing programming languages he could have used a simple and stable language as a base. How can he call LISP a logical language!? LISP is a functional language. But terminology is the least problem here. Check this quotation:

A language is a bridge between the human way of coding a program and the computer way. I assert that Pliant is the best way now available, because it addresses the bridging goal with the highest level of flexibility.

Come on, if somebody asserted to have created the best OS ever I could even believe it. But the best programming language? Such a thing simply can't exist, and event if it could Pliant has no chance from what I've seen. The only interesting part of it is the full meta-programming ability integrated with JIT-compiler, but there are languages with far cleaner meta-programming facilities. Only in the research community, though. If Pliant manages to bring more attention to great applicability of meta-programming it may be worth those 15 years of work, though.

Embedded systems (3)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425286)

Y'know, this might be just the thing for embedded systems. Depending on how robust it turns out to be, the combination of the Pliant userland and the Linux kernel seems like a great way to build simple, network-aware, embeddable systems without a great deal of unnecessary complexity.
--

Why not GNU Pliant? (4)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425287)

As the code written by the project lead is all GPLed (not necessarily some contributed portions) wouldn't it make sense for the Pliant project to join GNU? The project would get some free publicity, mirrors everywhere, and an extra boost from the GNU brand. There might have to be reassignment of copyright, but on the other hand, in the long run it might be cleaner to have contributors reassigning to the trusty FSF.

Re:We already have it (1)

jrcamp (150032) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425288)

I like Windows 2000, but since when could it be configured from a CLI?

Holding up okay so far... (3)

BigBlockMopar (191202) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425289)


It's also the first server running FullPliant to be Slashdotted. :^)

Politically Incorrect just started on ABC. There are 100+ responses. God knows how long this article has been up, but it's still the top of the page.

I'm impressed. No one has crashed it yet, and it doesn't seem to have melted down yet.

Re:No better (1)

core10k (196263) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425290)

No, it's bravely attempting to function under the load. Actually, not just attempting, but succeeding.

Sounds alot like .... (1)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425291)

A mini distro ...

Re:How is that INTERESTING? (1)

DocStoner (236199) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425293)


What!?!

Its a good thing Linus didn't take this kind of advice when he started on Linux. Hell, even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates probably ignored this kind of thinking when they were getting started.

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425296)

Well what then IS the point of this?

Downloads? (2)

evanbd (210358) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425304)

OK, quick question:

I feel like playing with this, but am always reluctant to put a new OS on my HDD containing lots of useful stuff. Besides, the last repartition attempt failed (no data lost, thankfully). So, does anyone have a bootable CD ISO I can burn that doesn't need to touch the HDD? I still can't get to the web site quickly...

Re:You beat me to it... (1)

rabtech (223758) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425305)

You just described Windows 2000/NT:

All system information is stored in one place. All users info goes into one certain place under that users's profile. Everything works in a set, systemmatic way. Yes, this limits Windows' "hackability" sometimes, but that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make for the standards and support I get.

Linux is a great "fooling around" tool for me, but the complexities aren't worth any gains I may receive over Windows 2000 at this time, in terms of using it as my primary OS. That could change in the future.
-
The IHA Forums [ihateapple.com]

Re:intresting, butİİİ (2)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425308)

ahh, but you see, we have differing experinces then... The majority of people with whom I am associated have gotten into linux *because* of UNIX. I attend NCState University, and up until a little while ago, the majority of machines on campus have been Solaris (Spark 4/5 and 10). It has been very useful to have a UNIX-like system running on the campus network as you can do many a thing that you can't with a windows box and an windows X-Server.

There are only two other people out of about 20 people I know who are really 'into' the opensource software/learning new things end of it. I was under the impression that we were the minority in such things.

It also follows (to me) that companies who are looking to adopt a new system would be looking for something that has been 'proven' in their minds. Many companies don't think linux to be, in and of itself, a 'proven' technology. It is (again IMO) the simple fact that (now most) linux based systems utilize UNIX ideas and technologies that gives linux this foot in the door. And (as companies enjoy such things as a third person perspective along the lines of certifications) the whole attempt at POSIX compliance gives linux ground on which to stand.

So, really, a good /. poll might be to find out how many people use linux because of innovation, coolness, unix-likeness, or whatever... Unless we've already gone there and I missed it ;-) ... But I guess my point would be that I think its UNIX-like qualities are the very basis of the success of Linux. So I ask again, what would be the use of such a system as has been presented here? Where does it 'fit in' with regaurd to the 'big picture'? Is this any more than an excersize to beef up ones own resume? Or will it be useful in the long run? Is the utilization of compile on the fly technology a step forward or a step back?

JDW

Re:First system complying with WHAT? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425310)

I don't get it.

"compiled on the fly" - have any of you ever worked with PHP?

It's "compiled on the fly" - so when you want to change a program, you change it, then point your browser at it.

But then, these compilations are CACHED - making an insanely fast programming environment with all the advantages of an interpreted system!

If this fella is smart, THAT'S WHAT HE'S DOING...

(talk about way cool!)

-Ben

Phew, it's not goatse. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#1425312)

Man, I saw that ".cx" in the link, and even though the rest of it wasn't It, I still thought long and hard before clicking on it :).

Re:eh? (1)

ekidder (121911) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425313)

Well, if you're feeling REALLY ninja, you can fix it. I once.. erm.. decided to play with my registry settings a little. Oops. Fortunately, I had a DOS-based hex editor lying around...

Problem solved! :)

Re:intresting, but... (1)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425314)

thanx for stickin up for me man... I really don't see how you would think this was flaimbait... I was honestly posing a genuine question here... My poor karma... oh! the horror! ... I feel so naked ...

JDW

Re:"What's the point?" (1)

ekidder (121911) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425315)

Maybe the point is to simply exist?

A small question (1)

pc486 (86611) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425318)

The web page claims that it uses a "dynamic compiler". It compiles the programs as it reads it. Isn't this the same thing as an interperted language such as Visual Basic, Perl scipts, and of the such with the same problems (such as it is normally slow)?

You beat me to it... (3)

MinusOne (4145) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425319)

I have wanted to do something like this for a long long time. Unix, GNU and Linux have accumulated such a huge amount of inconsistencies, variations and obscurities that I can see why it is so frustrating for newbies. If I could re-architect all the programs to get rid of all of the inconsistencies without having to have any backwould compatibility it would be great. Imagine having all programs on your system store all their configuration information in one consistent place - or just one place for systemwide stuff and one place for each user's local configs. Imagine if all the configuration files had the same format. Imagine if command line switches for all commands had some sort of pattern or predictability. It would be a big programming job to make things work like this, but it would make a system that was easier to learn, use, administer and develop for. It would also be just plain more fun. The Linux kernel lends itself to exactly this kind of development, and I have been wanting to start a project like this but have not had either the time nor the energy for it. It would also be fun to participate in all the design discussions to hash out how it all would work - tha twould really be the most fun!

Re:intresting, butİİİ (2)

lemonlime (177474) | more than 13 years ago | (#1425322)

From my experience, the types of people who use Linux and who are involved in Open Source tend to be the type to try out new software just for the thrill of learning it© People who don't want to try new things generally stick with Windows©
--
Cognosco: To examine, enquire, learn

It makes perfect sense (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#1425324)

I couldn' access the site -- as it's been hit hard already, but some of the early comments suggest that this guy is waisting his time; that he should be using his talents to further linux or an existing projecct.

I think that is a very silly point of view. Should Linus T. have been criticized for waisting his talents on linux, and not helping further Minix or 386BSD? People are free to do what interests them. That's the wellspring of innovation. Sure, some time is waisted, but that's the fun and elegance af creation.

One minor point, though; UNIX is more than the utilities that are layered into a shell. The kernel API and system calls are as much a part of UNIX philosopy as bash, ls, etc. Saying that this is "without UNIX" is probably overstating the uniquenes of the project.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?