Programming language for making OS

Dr.Mobius

I am speculating about suitable pl(programming language) which enable to me create my own OS. I now that this choice is very important for whole development. I am not satisfied with existing pl so I shall design my own. But this problem hold back whole project. So if somebody know please help me.

kurama

have you tried linux?
it will help you understand the systems behind an os and will probably help you make one...
do not think that it is more on console...
you can create a gui for it...
try it...

PrzemekG_

I arrived to the same conclusion like you. I'm writing a compiler myself for the purpose of creating an OS.

DennisR

: I'm writing a compiler myself for the purpose of creating an OS.
:

Consider http://www.pld2.com which is already a mature language for developing embedded systems. Highlights: no runtime, extensive compile-time programmability, processor instruction set programmable, rapid context compile-time switching between 4 codesets, more.

Dennis
DennisR@dair.com http://www.dair.com

vytzka

: have you tried linux?
: it will help you understand the systems behind an os and will probably help you make one...
: do not think that it is more on console...
: you can create a gui for it...
: try it...

Oh, yes, this is really true, not only for Linux, but also for *BSD and HURD. And do you really think you'll need your own programming language? I mean *really*? Although I'd be really glad to participate in such a great project anyway .

compuchip

I have seen various times now, that programmers like to do a lot of work, and always want to re-invent the wheel.
I must admit, it gives more satisfaction to make something yourself, but isn't it quicker and better to use things that someone else has already done for you?
I do believe C++ and ASM together are very powerful, though there are of course some disadvantages.
Now if everyone who posted here would work together, instead of writing 2 compilers, 4 OS's and some programming languages, maybe that would be more useful.
I'd be happy to "help" and learn something!!!

: : I'm writing a compiler myself for the purpose of creating an OS.
: :
:
: Consider http://www.pld2.com which is already a mature language for developing embedded systems. Highlights: no runtime, extensive compile-time programmability, processor instruction set programmable, rapid context compile-time switching between 4 codesets, more.
:
: Dennis
: DennisR@dair.com http://www.dair.com
:

vytzka

: Now if everyone who posted here would work together, instead of writing 2 compilers, 4 OS's and some programming languages, maybe that would be more useful.
I give up .
Vytzka.

Dr.Mobius

Well...
Before time, I wanted to join to some os project so as I will be helpful but I didnt find nothing appropriate. Mostly it was some inconsiderable little os project with educational purposes. I found a few good project but everything was created in C and mostly based on Unix. I found AtheOS on www.atheos.cx but it is based on unix too. I found that frequently used pl is just C. It is good but too complicated
and too old. There are many better pl, but C is the most wide-spread.(I'm afraid :-)). What about smalltalk, modula or other?(I dont know many).
However, this isnt my general problem. I look to future and I realize that I will have to write pl for my OS(to make app in it). So I can write it now and only rewrite in future. Another requirement is that I need compile my OS to different platform(in the concrete for my microcomputer with Z80 CPU, later with I8086) It is a long story.. Additional nowaday pls is to complicated and It is easy to make a mistake.
Obviously It was look crazy but I am not content because I am more ambitious...

Rather I would write Czech language..."Anglictina je sice jednoduch jazyk, ale clovek se ho nenauc pres noc."...but it looks understandable.

PrzemekG_

I don't know how smalltalk but modula is an interpreted language, as so, it can ron be run in a pure hardcore environement with only bios calls.

To make a portable OS, unfortunatly you need C or Pascal (they have the greater portability), but you won't be able to hardcore any assembler code (like small drivers).

jasonpsage

: I am speculating about suitable pl(programming language) which enable to me create my own OS. I now that this choice is very important for whole development. I am not satisfied with existing pl so I shall design my own. But this problem hold back whole project. So if somebody know please help me.
:
I've read the other threads and my opinion is to go with FreePascal (www.freepascal.org)
It is portable, writes lean mean code, you can throw in assembler where you need to, it calls subroutines/functions in a manner that is native to Intel Architecture (something C/C++ does not do) (has to do with how it handles the stack - much more effiecient than C/C++ on Intel unless you reverse the stack growth flag in the Intel Chip itself in your OS to be different from everything else - which would probably not be a good idea)

brain_inside

: To make a portable OS, unfortunatly you need C or Pascal (they have the greater portability)

I'm also planning to write my own OS (who doesn't ) and I want to use Pascal and Asm. Do you know any usable Pascal compiler which can output NASM compatible code? I have tried FreePascal which is very good IMHO but haven't found something to do this.

compuchip

IF you are interested in joining a team, search for the BigASM messageboard. It's around somewhere on Programmers' Heaven.

jasonpsage

: : To make a portable OS, unfortunatly you need C or Pascal (they have the greater portability)
:
: I'm also planning to write my own OS (who doesn't ) and I want to use Pascal and Asm. Do you know any usable Pascal compiler which can output NASM compatible code? I have tried FreePascal which is very good IMHO but haven't found something to do this.
:
I THINK freepascal has a setting you change for WHICH assembler it is to use. I'm ot sure if this only effects the INLINE assem you put in source or the one it tries to make its object code from. IF that is the case...Worth looking into perhaps....then there DEFINATELY is a feature in FPC where you can change the config file so it doesn't remove the temp assembly source it creates before it compiles it and links it. This would give both assembly source and the binary objects I believe.

Best Wishes!
Jason