In article <················@netcom.com>, ······@netcom.com (David Pollen)
wrote:
> Sorry for wasting yet more bandwidth for asking such a general question
>
> What do all these new operating systems such as NT, Taligent, Workplace
> OS, NextSTep have over a good lisp enviroment with CLOS and various
> development tools and application. I am not refering to silly things
> like soundcards, networking, etc. Just the internal expressability
> of the command set. Supposably all these things will be "object
> oriented" etc. and revolutionize (eventually) everything, but
> what kinds of "neat-o" things and commands can you do that you
> couldn't do easily in LISP already w/o much work.
[Disclaimer:] Somebody more qualified than I should respond, but hasn't
yet.
I believe the big plus is not in a great swatch of new functionality, but
in better maintainability and simpler upgrades.
An object-oriented OS has the exact same benefits as an object-oriented
application. [After all, an OS *is* 'just' an application. :-)]
Specifically, once the OS migrates to an object-oriented format, it should
be far easier to include/exclude the parts of an OS one needs/hates. OSes
are getting larger and larger; many of them have optional 'extensions'. An
object-oriented format gives these extensions a better chance of peacefully
co-existing. It also increases the likelihood that a particular section of
an OS can be made optional.
Also, if one is working in an object-oriented higher-level language, an
object-oriented OS may be a benefit in a symbiotic way; ie, it is usually
easier to design an interface between two object-oriented systems than two
mismatched systems.
Finally, a consistent object-oriented OS makes new low-level calls easier;
the interaction to the call is spelled out in a consistent, clear, and
hopefully simple way.
Note that object-oriented programming can be done poorly, with the expected
results; but it's slightly less likely to be done poorly than others, IMHO.
--
--
--
-- "TANSTAAFL" Rich ·····@ils.nwu.edu
In article <··················@lynch.ils.nwu.edu>
·····@ils.nwu.edu "Richard Lynch" writes:
> Also, if one is working in an object-oriented higher-level language, an
> object-oriented OS may be a benefit in a symbiotic way; ie, it is usually
> easier to design an interface between two object-oriented systems than two
> mismatched systems.
Ithink I remember once reading about how the Amiga OS was such a
system. That may have been before C++ appeared, tho. The point that
was made was how dara structures like lists could share code, as
they had a common definition. That was the first time I remember
reading about such an approach, except for pure OO systems like
Smalltalk-80.
> Finally, a consistent object-oriented OS makes new low-level calls easier;
> the interaction to the call is spelled out in a consistent, clear, and
> hopefully simple way.
Same again, at least as far as data structures are concerned. If anyone
here with more Amiga knowledge than me (which would _not_ be hard),
please correct me or add to my meagre bits of info (or misinfo?).
What I am faily sure of is that the part of the Amiga OS that came from
Tripos was originally written in BCPL, which is no more OO than C.
> Note that object-oriented programming can be done poorly, with the expected
> results; but it's slightly less likely to be done poorly than others, IMHO.
That sounds like the "weak" OOP that I recall reading about in the
Amiga OS. Systems like MS Windows are sometimes called OO, but I
would only call them event oriented. That's hardly the same, as many
components can't be subclassed with the same benifits as in a pure
OO system. This distinction might not be so valid for "objects" using
technologies like VBX or OCX. I can't comment on System 7.
--
Martin Rodgers, WKBBG, London UK AKA "Cyber Surfer"
If "One likes to believe in the freedom of email", email
················@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
This is a shareware .signature -- please pass it on!