Related
Guess no new project is implemented in languages like Modula, Ada , Oberon .. anymore (right?). But still there are legacy systems floating around, popping out here and there looking for their creators. They cant find them because they might be retired sitting at a beach somewhere enjoying themselves.
Serious:
1) I am wondering if there are still active (experienced) Modula programmers around ?
2) Anyone experience with porting Modula code to a new hardware generation ?
3) Does anyone know about a tool that can re-engineer, means map Procedures and Mod-files in a graphical way. These tools are available for eg. C programs.
Sure, Modula Syntax is not that breathtaking in comparison to todays .net and Java API's with 1000's of methods, but if someone drop about 100.000 lines of almost undocumented sourcode at you (nicely mixed with some 8000 lines assembler), you better know if you better reject it. I have this request and I am very resistant. (Option: port and keep modula source or migrate to other language in 9 months!)
cheers
1) I am wondering if there are still active (experienced) Modula programmers around ?
There are plenty of them, but you have to do a bit of web search to find them. If you search for "Curriculum Vitae" (or "Resume") and "Modula-2" there should be plenty of hits. Also, anybody who has experience in Oberon, Pascal or Delphi will be able to handle Modula-2.
Also there are active Modula-2 projects, most notably:
GNU Modula-2 at http://www.nongnu.org/gm2
Modula-2 R10 at http://modula-2.net/m2r10
Modula2JCC at http://code.google.com/p/modula2jcc
Modulipse at http://modulipse.sourceforge.net
Schwarzer Kaffee http://sourceforge.net/projects/schwarzerkaffee
2) Anyone experience with porting Modula code to a new hardware generation ?
Ask on the GNU Modula-2 mailing list. Many GNU Modula-2 users have Modula-2 code from 16-bit DOS systems they like to port to modern platforms. The GNU Modula-2 website lists this as one important motivation for GM2. The GM2 mailing list is at:
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gm2
There is also the Modula-2 Usenet news group, you can reach it via the Google interface at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.modula2
Last but not least, there is a Modula-2 IRC channel at Freenode
irc://irc.freenode.net/#modula-2
3) How to assess 100.000 lines of Modula-2 source code
"if someone drop about 100.000 lines of almost undocumented sourcode at you (nicely mixed with some 8000 lines assembler), you better know if you better reject it. I have this request and I am very resistant. (Option: port and keep modula source or migrate to other language in 9 months!)"
You may want to contact Rick Sutcliffe, a well known Modula-2 scholar and book author who is also the maintainer of the Modula-2 FAQ in which he states that he does get hired to do consulting work for assessing Modula-2 source code in company take-over situations. It seems to me that your situation might be similar enough to justify hiring an expert to establish the value of the software that is offered to you.
The Modula-2 FAQ is at http://faq.modula2.net
1) I am wondering if there are still active (experienced) Modula programmers around ?
Yes, I'm one. But I already have a job :-)
2) Anyone experience with porting Modula code to a new hardware generation ?
Not clear if you meant porting code or porting a compiler. Porting Wirth's Modula-2 compiler (or Oberon compiler) should be easy. Ada and Modula-3 are another story.
3) Does anyone know about a tool that can re-engineer, means map Procedures and Mod-files in a graphical way. These tools are available for eg. C programs.
I don't understand the question. If you are looking to visualize the import graph of a Modula-2 program, you could easily write something to emit dot. Visualizing call graphs is another story.
Here's my bottom line on Modula-2 and Oberon:
Any C programmer worth his or her salt can quickly learn enough Modula-2 to maintain a large legacy application. Oberon's another story; its model of exported names and type extension is not like the object models found in other OO languages.
Wirth's genius as a language designer was to make things easy for the person writing the compiler. So if you need tools, any good compiler writer can produce them. Wirth's compiler should be available and easy to port.
Ada does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Modula-2 and Oberon.
Ada is still an very active language. I use it in my own research since 1995 and in my lectures since last year at a university.
I myself don't know much of Modula, however I worked at a research center in Brazil that had a packet switching network project (Compac) that was entirely created in Modula-2. If I'm not mistaken they even developed the compiler/linker themselves. Since I don't feel at liberty to point you to specific persons, I would suggest you do a google search for "compac" and "cpqd" and I can pretty much guarantee you will find names of people involved in it. It should come as no surprise that references to it are quite old, from late 80's.
Modula-2 is architecturally not that dissimilar to C. A programmer familiar with C should have little trouble figuring out Modula-2. Given that your application has a significant body of assembler code then you will need someone with low-level skills anyway.
IIRC Modula-2's grammar is LL(1) or nearly so, so writing a parser to generate call graphs for a Modula-2 code base is not beyond the wit of man. Graphviz is your friend if you want a quick and easy way of visualising the call graphs. Again, this suggests that you're up for employing a 'real programmer' to do the porting work.
If you need a reasonably viable Modula-2 compiler, you could look at the Amsterdam Compiler Kit which does have a competent Modula-2 compiler that can target a wide variety of platforms, although it doesn't support Win32 IIRC.
I would suggest that documenting and porting the existing Modula-2 code base is probably easier than attempting to re-write it in C. However, if you need to move to a different processor architecture then you will have to re-write the assembly language bits anyway. This does rather change the value proposition of porting.
If it is you doing the porting then you might consider doing it in two steps.
Arrange with the customer to do a utility to generate the call graph and give them a feasibility study recommending what to do and some estimate of the scope.
Do the port, either porting the code base or re-writing it. Bear in mind that you may not need a low level language for the entire code base if you're running it on a modern computer. You may be able to do it in a mixture of (say) Python and C with less effort than would have been needed for a rewrite purely in C.
Yup.
I realise that you asked this question quite some time ago but I also know that projects that nobody like to handle get kind of delayed...
I built several large systems in Modula-2 over a span of ten years and have this insane habit of taking on impossible tasks.
I have not touched it for about ten years but am absolutely certain that I can port your system for you to almost any other platform. Why not get in touch with me if you are still interested?
Oh yeah - better still, we are both in Singapore :-)
ADW Modula-2 has now been released as freeware. http://www.modula2.org/adwm2/ Since it's free and supports 32 & 64-bit Windows applications (and I know Modula-2), I've picked it up and am using it for small utility work that I want to be a 64-bit Windows binary (most of my work is in Java and .Net, which are fine but sometimes a pure binary is best. I use MASM32 for 32-bit binary Windows apps already).
edit
There's also a project in the works (still very early on, not yet usable as of the date of this edit) now to compile Modula-2 on the JVM (with a transpile to Java option). https://github.com/m2sf/m2j
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
We don't teach children calculus first. We first teach them arithmetic, then algebra, then geometry, the analytical geometry, then finally calculus.
Why then, do we teach our computer scientists frameworks and IDE first. Some curriculum do force students to learn computer science fundamentals, but the vast majority of graduates that I see could not compose a framework of their own to save their lives.
Where then is the next generation of tool builders?
How can we promote the understanding necessary to create frameworks and development environments?
This is of course a generality. Not all education is lacking, but it seems to be the majority and it brings down the quality of our profession as a whole.
I think the analogy is a bit off. A better analogy would be "We don't teach our kids to use calculators to add and subtract, why teach programmers to use an IDE to program?"
Get rid of HR departments that require X years experience in Y. The universities are just tailoring their course to the HR department's requirements.
I employ graduates who can code in something (I really don't care what language) and who can learn.
I see your point, although I think the math analogy doesn't quite fit. You have to know basic arithmetic to be able to get anything done in any other math discipline.
When I began programming frameworks were mostly unheard of. If you wanted a binary tree, by God, you went and wrote one. In C or Assembler. That was basically it, so to get anything done at all you had to know a lot.
Today, Frameworks and IDEs and designers make it possible for "noobs" to create actually pretty brilliant things without knowing the first thing about how to build a framework, or a compiler, or manage memory allocation.
The real issue is, what about all the dingbats that think they are awesome, great programmers because they used Frontpage or Access? Managers have a hard time telling the difference between that kind of programmer and one that really knows software development as a discipline.
So, specifically, why is it that way? Because everyone wants a job and nobody hires programmers that know how to build a binary tree. They want programmers that know .Net or J2EE, etc.
I would argue that there is probably enough work out there for 9 to 5 programmers who can start at the framework level and go up from there. The truly good ones - mostly your program as a career and/or program as a hobby - are going to get the knowledge they may have missed in college over time anyway. You can't force everyone to be a wonderful programmer no matter what curriculum you teach. Inquisitive students are going to learn about the fundamentals whether its taught to them in class or entirely on their own.
There are tool makers and tool breakers. And of course there are tools, but let's not go there.
If you have a good look at an automotive workshop, you will see a lot of funny little tools that you don't see on the shelves in hardware stores. Like the ones for pushing back brake caliper pistons. Or the clamps for compressing valve stems so you can get the collets out with one hand while talking to your mates about nailing the new secretary (instead of watching them fly across the room when the spring slips out from your screwdriver).
These were designed by mechanics. They're really effective, generally small and cheap, and totally incomprehensible until you seen them in action.
Most of the profound changes in automotive technology were bottom-up, but top-down is also needed. Individual mechanics can't make fundamental technology changes like the switch from cast iron to alloy heads. A new broom sweeps clean, an old broom knows the corners. You need both.
But I digress: the point is that the mechanics couldn't design these tools if they lacked fundamental skills and knowledge. My father built me an entire motorcycle from scrap iron when I was a kid. As an adult, because I lack his skills and knowledge and modes of thought, I can barely maintain the bike I bought from Honda, much less take to it with an oxy like Mr T in a creative frenzy.
With code, I am as my father was with steel. Donald Knuth is my constant companion, and when the wireless protocol for our GPS loggers needs to be implemented in .NET it's me they come to see. The widget monkeys wouldn't know where to start.
I think the problem is in fact the GUI paradigm in general.
Microsoft made using computers much easier, they popularized the Graphical User Interface. They brought this interface metaphor, (the desktop, the file) to the domain of programming as well and very effectively too with their Visual Basic tool.
But just as the GUI obscures what happens "under the hood" so does the IDE obscure the manipulation of bits and bytes. The question is, of course, risk to reward ratio - how much understanding do programmers lose in exchange for productivity?
A cursory look at "The Art of Computer Programming" might show why IDEs are useful; "The ultimate packing density is achieved when we have 1-bit items, because we can cram 64 of them into a single 64-bit word. Suppose, for example, that we want a table of all odd prime numbers less than 1024, so that we can easily decide the primality of a small integer. No problem; only eight 64-bit numbers are required:
p0 = 011101101101001100101101001001001100101100101001000101101101000000
p1 = . . ."
Programming is really hard, you can see how an IDE might help. :^)
Learning the abstraction is easier than learning the details when it comes to programming. It's harder to teach someone to hand-code assembler to print "Hello World" than it is to have them throw together a form with a button on it that shows a "Hello World" message when the button is clicked.
You didn't know how to build the engine of a car before learning to drive, did you? Because it's not necessary in order to drive. In the same vein, you don't need to learn how a linked list or binary tree works in order to maintain a list of names and search them.
There will always be those who want to get under the hood and learn the "why" of things, but I don't think it's required to get things done.
I always screen applications by asking difficult questions that they could only answer if they understood how something really works. I think it is a real shame colleges and universities are teaching people framework based development but not focusing on core software principles. I agree that what matters more than anything is someone who understands how programming works and has the drive to learn anything they can about it.
Most universities I know of have an introduction to computer programming course that teaches basic programming concepts. Unfortunately it is impossible to teach programming without actually writing code.
The problem is that some prefer to teach this course using some OO language such as JAVA or C# and so the students must use Visual Studio (or the Java equivalent).
It is very hard to explain the basic concepts when the IDE forces you to work in a certain way.
I think that the first language students learn should be functional language such as C. This way you have less layers of abstraction between them and the basic CS concepts.
Agree with cfeduke.
I looked at the work for the same CS courses I did from 2 years previously, and they were way harder. 5 years previously, way way harder.
The CS bar is being lowered more and more, presumably because there are more and more jobs that don't require any working knowledge of any of the complicated CS subjects. There are huge numbers of jobs for people to just cut code.
Since traditionaly people who wanted to be programmers did CS courses as coding has gotten easier this is still the case.
What really needs to happen is for CS to not be a requirement for professional software development. Instead there needs to be another curriculam that focuses more on getting people out the door and cutting code.
This would leave CS to be that course for you next generation of tool builder.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am toying with the idea of creating an completely new operating system and would like to hear what everyone on this forums take is on that? First is it too late are the big boys so entrenched in our lives that we will never be able to switch (wow - what a terrible thought...). But if this is not the case, what should a operating system do for you? What features are the most important? Should all the components be separate installations (in other words - should the base OS really have no user functionality and that gets added on by creating "plug-ins" kind of like a good flexible tool?)
Why do I want to do this... I am more curious about whether there is a demand and I am wondering, since the OSes we use most today (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X (Free BSD)) were actually written more than 20 years ago (and I am being generous - I mean dual and quad cores did not exist back then, buses were much slower, hardware was much more expensive, etc,...), I was just curious with the new technology if we would do anything differently?
I am anxious to read your comments.
To answer the first question: It's never too late. Especially when it comes to niche market segments and stuff like that.
Second though, before you start down the path of creating a new OS, you should understand the kind of undertaking it is: it'd be a massive project.
Is it just a normal programmer "scratch the itch" kind of project? If so, then by all means go ahead -- you might learn alot of things by doing it. But if you're doing it for the resulting product, then you shouldn't start down that path until you've looked at all the current OSes under development (there are alot more than you'd think at first) and figured out what you'd like to change in them.
Quite possibly the effort would be better spent improving/changing an existing open source system. Even for your own experimentation, it may be easier to get the results you want if you start out with something already in development.
First, a little story. In 1992, during the very first Win32 ( what would become the MS Professional Developers Conference ) conference, I had the opportunity to sit with over some lunch with one Mr. Dave Cutler ( Chief Architect of what most folks would now know as Windows NT,Windows 2000, XP, etc. ).
I was at the time working on the Multimedia group at IBM Boca Raton on what some of you might remember, OS/2. Having worked on OS/2 for several years, and recognizing "the writing on the wall" of where OSes were going, I asked him, "Dave, is Windows NT going to take us into the next century or are there other ideas on your mind ?". His answer to me was as follows:
"M...., Windows NT is the last operating system anyone will ever develop from scratch !". Then he looked over at me, took a sip of his beer, and said, "Then again, you could wake up next Saturday after a particularly good night out with your girl, and have a whole new approach for an operating system, that'll put this to shame."
Putting that conversation into context, and given the fact I'm back in college pursuing my Master's degree ( specializing in Operating Systems design ), I'd say there's TONS of room for new operating systems. The thing is to put things into perspective. What are your target goals for this operating system ? What problem space is it attempting to service ?
Putting this all into perspective will give you an indication of whether you're really setting your sights on an achievable goal.
That all being said, I second an earlier commenters note about looking into things like "Singularity" ( the focus of a talk I gave this past spring in one of my classes .... ), or if you really want to "sink your teeth into" an OS in its infancy....look at "ReactOS".
Then again, WebOSes, like gOS, and the like, are probably where we're headed over the next decade or so. Or then again, someone particularly bright could wake up after a particularly fruitful evening with their lady or guy friend, and have the "next big idea" in operating systems.
Why build the OS directly on a physical machine? You'll just be mucking around in assembly language ;). Sure, that's fun, but why not tackle an OS for a VM?
Say an OS that runs on the Java/.NET/Parrot (you name it) VM, that can easily be passed around over the net and can run a bunch of software.
What would it include?
Some way to store data (traditional FS won't cut it)
A model for processes / threads (or just hijack the stuff provided by the VM?)
Tools for interacting with these processes etc.
So, build a simple Platform that can be executed on a widely used virtual machine. Put in some cool functionality for a specific niche (cloud computing?). Go!
For more information on the micro- versus monolithic kernel, look up Linus' 'discussion' with Andrew Tanenbaum.
I would highly suggest looking at an early version on linux(0.01) to at least get your feet wet. You're going to mucking about with assembly and very obscure low-level stuff to even get started (especially getting into protected mode, multi-tasking, etc). And yes, it's probably true that the "big boys" already have the market cornered. I'm not telling you NOT to do it, but maybe doing some work on the linux kernel would be a better stepping stone.
Check out Cosmos and Singularity, these represent what I want from a futuristic operating system ;-)
Edit :
SharpOS is another managed OS effort. Suggested by yshuditelu
An OS should have no user functionality at all. User functionality should be added by separate projects, which does not at all mean that the projects should not work together!
If you are interested in user functionality maybe you should look into participating in existing Desktop Environment projects such as GNOME, KDE or something.
If you are interested in kernel-level functionality, either try hacking on a BSD derivate or on Linux, or try creating your own system -- but don't think too much about the user functionality then. Getting the core of an operating system right is hard and will take a long time -- wanting to reinvent everything does not make much sense and will get you nowhere.
You might want to join an existing OS implementation project first, or at least look at what other people have implemented.
For example AROS has been some 10 or more years in the making as a hobby OS, and is now quite usable in many ways.
Or how about something more niche? Check out Symbios, which is a fully multitasking desktop (in the style of Windows) operating system - for 4MHz Z80 CPUs (Amstrad CPC, MSX). Maybe you would want to write something like this, which is far less of a bite than a full next-generation operating system.
Bottom line...focus on your goals and even more importantly the goals of others...help to meet those needs. Never start with just technology.
I'd recommend against creating your own Operating System. (My own geeky interruption...Look into Cloud Computing and Amazon EC2)
I totally agree that it would first help by defining what your goals are. I am a big fan of User Experiences and thinking of not only your own goals but the goals of your audience/users/others. Once you have those goals, then move to the next step of how to meet it.
Now days what is an Operation System any way? kernal, Operating System, Virtual Server Instance, Linux, Windows Server, Windows Home, Ubuntu, AIX, zSeries OS/390, et al. I guess this is a good definition of OS... Wikipedia
I like Sun's slogan "the Network is the computer" also...but their company has really fallen in the past decade.
On that note of the Network is the computer... again, I highly recommend, checking out Amazon EC2 and more generally cloud computing.
I think that building a new OS from scratch to resemble the current OSes on the market is a waste of time. Instead, you should think about what Operating System will be like 10-20 years from now. My intuition is that they will be so different as to render them mostly unrecognizable by today's standards. Think of frameworks such as Facebook (gasp!) for models of how future OSes will operate.
I think you're right about our current operating systems being old. Someone said that all operating systems suck. And yes, don't we have problems with them? Call it BSOD, Sad Mac or a Kernel Panic. Our filesystems fail, there are security and reliability problems.
Microsoft pursued interesting approach with its Singularity kernel. It isolates processes in software, using a virtual machine similar to .NET, and formal verification methods. Basically all IPC seems to be formally specified and verified, even before a program is ran.
But there's another problem with it - Singularity is only a kernel. You can't run application not designed for it on it. This is a huge penalty, making eventual transition (Singularity is not public) quite hard. If you manage to produce something of similar technical advantages, but with a real transition plan (think about IPv4->IPv6 problems, or how Windows got so much market share on desktop), that could be huge!
But starting small is not a bad choice either. Linux started just like this, and there are many cases when it leads to better design. Small is beautiful. Easier to change. Easier to grow. Anyway, good luck!
checkout singularity project,
do something revolutionary
I've always wanted an operating system that was basically nothing but a fresh slate. It would have built in plugin support which allow you to build the user interface, applications, whatever you want.
This system would work much like a Lua sandbox to a game would work, minus the limitations. You could build a plugin or module system that would have access to a variety of subsystems that you would use. For example, if you were to write a web browser application, you would need to load the networking library and use that within your plugin script. Need 'security' ? Load the library.
The difference between this and Linux is that, Linux is an operating system but has a windows manager that runs over top of it. In this theoretical operating system, you would be able to implement the generic "look" and "feel" of a variety of windows within the plugin system, or could you create a custom interface.
The difference between this and Windows is that its fully customizable, and by fully I mean if you wanted to not implement any cryptography at all, you can do that, or if you wanted to customize an already existing window, you can do that. Nothing is closed to you.
In this theoretical operating system, there is an OS with a plugin system. The plugin system uses a simple and powerful language.
If you're asking what I'd like to see in an operating system, I can give you a list. I am just getting into programming so I'm not sure if any of this is possible, but I can give you my ideas.
I'd like to see a developed operating system (besides the main ones) in which it ISN'T a pain to get the wireless card to work. That is my #1 pet peeve with most of the ones I've tried out.
It would be cool to see an operating system designed by a programmer for other programmers. Have it so you can run programs for all different operating systems. I don't know if that's possible without having a copy of windows and OSX but it would be really damn cool if I could check the compatablity of programs I write with all operating systems.
You could also consider going with MINIX which is a good starting point.
To the originator of this forum, my hats off to you sir for daring to think in much bolder and idealistic terms regarding the IT industry. First and foremost, Your questions are precisely the kind you would think should engage a much broader audience given the flourishing Computer Sciences all over the globe & the openness taught to us by the Revolutionary Linux OS, which has only begun to win the hearts and minds of so many out there by way of strengthing its user-friendly interface. So kudos on pushing the envelope.
If I'm following correctly, you are supposing that given the fruits of our labor thus far, the development of further hardware & Software concoctions could or at least should be less conventional. The implication, of course, is that any new development would reach its goal faster than what is typical. The prospect, however, of an entirely new OS system #this time would be challenging - to say the least - only because there is so much friction out there already between Linux & Windows. It is really a battle between open source & the proprietary ideologies. Bart Roozendaal in a comment above proves my point nicely. Forget the idea of innovation and whatever possibilities may come from a much more contemporary based Operating System, for such things are secondary. What he is asking essentially is, are you going to be on the side of profit or no? He gives his position away easily here. As you know, Windows is notorious for its monopolistic approach regarding new markets, software, and other technology. It has maintained a deathgrip on its hegemony since its existence and sadly the windows os is racked with endless bugs & backdoors.
Again, I applaud you for your taking a road less travelled and hopefully forgeing ahead and not becoming discouraged. Personally, I'd like to see another OS out there...one much more contemporary.
On an average, how much time does it take to become proficient in development using JD Edwards? Is it easy to learn? Are there any prerequisites?
I'm assuming you're interested on learning the development skills of JD Edwards, not the business processes that the system actually implements.
There are 2 versions of JDE. One runs over AS/400 plataforms, DB2 database and uses RPG (language) to implement reports and functionalities. I'm not acquainted with that version (did very few interface jobs and they were all complicated due to DB2's differences from my usual flavours of databases - Oracle or SQL Server).
The other version is EnterpriseOne (formerly OneWorld). I started developing for this version in 2000 and kept active until 2006. It's very easy to achieve the basic level of development and then you get to face the oddities and known issues from the system and how to dodge them and that's when you become experienced.
All development tools are internal to JDE. There's a table designer, a query designer (with a grid interface that resembles any visual query designer), an interactive programs designer (forms), a report designer and a business rules designer.
If you have experience with any RDA tool (like Visual Studio, for instance) and development for databases, you will be able to use this knowledge to ease the learning curve. In my case, I was a SQL programmer and I had a lot of experience with Visual Basic and Microsoft Access. I was able to use that experience by understanding the underlying concepts of the system and adapting for them. It took me about 25 hours of training with a more seasoned programmer to get me ready to at least do basic stuff on real customers. This amount of hours varies from person to person, obviously.
However, I can say that I only started to feel that I was understanding the tools and the process after 6 months of daily work on my first customer. After about 12-18 months, I was ashamed of the first applications that I wrote, so I actually went back and rewrote some on my own time... :-)
The thing about JDE is: there's very little coding/functionality on the database side (because it used to be flexible on databases choices). All the forms and reports are written inside the actual system by way of the designers.
All "coding" is done by way of a simple (and sometimes dumb) point-and-click interface. For instance: you don't write an assignment statement, like var = value. You select the Assignment button, then you select the variable in a list, then you select the value in a list (or enter the value, if it's fixed).
All the rules behind forms, reports and business rules are created that way. One exception: when you're writing a business rule, you can opt between using this approach (called Named Event Rule - NER) or using the C language (called Business Function).
If you choose NER, after you finish, the system actually converts that to C.
There are debug functionalities for forms, reports and business rules.
This is basic development. There are other tools and functionalities that are usually assigned to developers and so you will be able to do a lot more. I've worked a lot with interfaces, interoperability, workflow and more.
Also noteworthy is that JDE has an internal tool for managing objects, version control, checkins, checkouts and transfering objects from one environment to another to complete the development cicle.
As a developer, the more you learn about the business processes being implemented, the better. You get to learn the inside (code, specs) and outside (process) for the functionalities and this helps you as a developer and helps you in your career (and paygrade).
Now, my only caveat regarding my answer: as I've mentioned, it's been a while since I left JD Edwards development. As far as I know, things are pretty much the same, but I can't say for sure.
Best advice I can offer: go to www.jdelist.com for specific questions and help with issues. Be polite, try to ask questions about specific matters instead of general questions (I mean: if you ask those guys how long does it take to learn JDE, they will probably ignore you, but if you ask stuff like "in your opinion, what are the most complex tasks for a JDE developer to master?" you will probably get some pretty good answers).
Hope it helps and wish you good luck with JDE. After the initial bump, I enjoyed my ride on it quite a lot.
You can start with the JD Edwards EntepriseOne Developer guide to learn about object management work bench, design tools for table, form and reports and API for Business Functions.
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E53430_01/nav/development.htm
As far as I can tell, it depends on the version of JDE. There are a lot of different components, and different versions (from what I can tell.) For example, a sister company of ours is running JDE over terminals to an AS/400. It's all "Green Screen" text-based screens, typing three letter commands at a command prompt, and using the cursor to move around the screen.
I haven't tried to learn it in depth yet, but trying to learn enough to do basic support has taken me several months at a few hours a week. Think of JDE as a baby version of SAP, that gives you an idea of the scope of your question.
I taught some classes about JDEdwards EnterpriseOne Development.
One of my students who never programmed before took about 320 hours of trainning to be able to do some developments on JDEdwards. Nowadays he's a coworker and a good programmer.
His 320 hours of trainning was:
During 5 months I taught on saturdays, 8 hours
Then he got another trainning which was 4 hours week and 8 hours on saturdays for 5 weeks
As I've said after all this, he has being able to perform all tasks of a JDEdwards Developer.
And my advice to who is going to study this is to have a good knowledge of SQL and have programmed before in any compiled language, it helps a lot.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
One thing I've always wanted to do is develop my very own operating system (not necessarily fancy like Linux or Windows, but better than a simple boot loader which I've already done).
I'm having a hard time finding resources/guides that take you past writing a simple "Hello World" OS.
I know lots of people will probably recommend I look at Linux or BSD; but the code base for systems like that is (presumably) so big that I wouldn't know where to start.
Any suggestions?
Update: To make it easier for people who land on this post through Google here are some OS development resources:
Writing Your Own Operating System (Thanks Adam)
Linux From Scratch (Thanks John)
SharpOS (C# Operating System) (Thanks lomaxx)
Minix3 and Minix2 (Thanks Mike)
OS Dev Wiki and Forums (Thanks Steve)
BonaFide (Thanks Steve)
Bran (Thanks Steve)
Roll your own toy UNIX-clone OS (Thanks Steve)
Broken Thorn OS Development Series
Other resources:
I found a nice resource named MikeOS, "MikeOS is a learning tool to demonstrate how simple OSes work. It uses 16-bit real mode for BIOS access, so that it doesn't need complex drivers"
Updated 11/14/08
I found some resources at Freebyte's Guide to...Free and non-free Operating Systems that links to kits such as OSKit and ExOS library. These seem super useful in getting started in OS development.
Updated 2/23/09
Ric Tokyo recommended nanoos in this question. Nanoos is an OS written in C++.
Updated 3/9/09
Dinah provided some useful Stack Overflow discussion of aspiring OS developers: Roadblocks in creating a custom operating system discusses what pitfalls you might encounter while developing an OS
and OS Development is a more general discussion.
Updated 7/9/09
LB provided a link to the Pintos Project, an education OS designed for students learning OS development.
Updated 7/27/09 (Still going strong!)
I stumbled upon an online OS course from Berkley featuring 23 lectures.
TomOS is a fork of MikeOS that includes a little memory manager and mouse support. As MikeOS, it is designed to be an educational project. It is written in NASM assembler.
Updated 8/4/09
I found the slides and other materials to go along with the online Berkeley lectures listed above.
Updated 8/23/09
All questions tagged osdev on stackoverflow
OS/161 is an academic OS written in c that runs on a simulated hardware. This OS is similar in Nachos. Thanks Novelocrat!
tangurena recommends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroC/OS-II, an OS designed for embedded systems. There is a companion book as well.
Linux Kernel Development by Robert Love is suggested by Anders. It is a "widely acclaimed insider's look at the Linux kernel."
Updated 9/18/2009
Thanks Tim S. Van Haren for telling us about Cosmos, an OS written entirely in c#.
tgiphil tells us about Managed Operating System Alliance (MOSA) Framework, "a set of tools, specifications and source code to foster development of managed operating systems based on the Common Intermediate Language."
Update 9/24/2009
Steve found a couple resources for development on windows using Visual Studio, check out BrokenThorn's guide setup with VS 2005 or OSDev's VS Section.
Updated 9/5/2012
kerneltrap.org is no longer available. The linux kernel v0.01 is available from kernel.org
Updated 12/21/2012
A basic OS development tutorial designed to be a semester's project. It guides you through to build an OS with basic components. Very good start for beginners. Related paper. Thanks Srujan!
Updated 11/15/2013
Writing a Simple Operating System From Scratch. Thanks James Moore!
Updated 12/8/2013
How to make a computer operating system Thanks ddtoni!
Updated 3/18/2014
ToAruOS an OS built mostly from scratch, including GUI
Updated Sept 12 2016
Writing your own Toy Operating System
Updated Dec 10 2016
Writing a Simple Operating System —from Scratch (thank you #Tyler C)
There are a lot of links after this brief overview of what is involved in writing an OS for the X86 platform.
The link that appears to be most promising (www.nondot.org/sabre/os/articles) is no longer available, so you'll need to poke through the Archive.org version to read it.
At the end of the day the bootloader takes the machine code of the kernel, puts it in memory, and jumps to it. You can put any machine code in the kernel that you want, but most C programs expect an OS so you'll need to tell your compiler that it won't have all that, or the bootloader has to create some of it.
The kernel then does all the heavy lifting, and I suspect it's the example kernel you want. But there's a long way to go between having a kernel that says, "Hello world" to having a kernel that loads a command interpretor, provides disk services, and loads and manages programs.
You might want to consider subscribing to ACM to get access to their older literature - there are lots of articles in the late 80's and early 90's in early computing magazines about how to create alternative OSs. There are likely books that are out of print from this era as well. You might be able to get the same information for free by looking up the indexes of those magazines (which are available on that site - click "index" near the magazine name) and then asking around for people with a copy.
Lastly, I know that usenet is dead (for so sayeth the prophets of internet doom) but you'll find that many of the craggy old experts from that era still live there. You should search google groups (they have dejanews's old repository) and I expect you'll find many people asking the same questions a decade or 1.5 ago that you're asking now. You may even run across Linus Torvalds' many queries for help as he was developing linux originally. If searches don't bring anything up, ask in the appropriate newsgroup (probably starts with comp.arch, but search for ones with OS in the name).
Minix is a lot smaller, and designed for learning purposes, and the book to go with it is a good one too.
Update: I guess Minix 3 is a bit of a different goal, but Minix 2 (and of course the first version) were for teaching purposes.
As someone who has written a real-time multi-tasking operating system from scratch...
keyboard debounce routine, keyboard driver, disk driver, video driver, file system, and finally a boot-loader - and that's just to launch it for the first time with nothing to do!
... I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to get familiar with the hardware! This is especially so if you really want to do it all yourself instead of just picking up a primitive system someone else has already laid out for you. For example, contact Intel and ask them for a CPU card for your type of CPU! This will lay it out for you - the "pin-outs", interrupts, opcodes, you name it!
Remember the hardware makes it all possible. Study the hardware. You won't regret it.
.
Write a microcontroller OS. I recommend an x86 based microcontroller. A modern OS is just huge. Learn the basics first.
I wish there was one place to get all of the info about developing your own OS. The closest to come to that is OS Dev Wiki and Forums. They offer a ton of good information regarding the setup, development, and device hardware information.
Also there are some great tutorials at BoneFide, I've used the getting started tutorial by Bran, and am now looking at a more recent one based on his called Roll your own toy UNIX-clone OS.
I second checking out: "Operating Systems : Design and Implementation"
And if you want to develop on Windows, check out jolson's blog post.
Edit:
For development on windows using Visual Studio, check out BrokenThorn's guide or OSDev's wiki.
An excellent resource is the material of the MIT course 6.828: Operating System Engineering.
XV6 - simple Unix-like teaching OS written in ANSI C for x86
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html
XV6 source - as a printed booklet with line numbers
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6/xv6-rev7.pdf
XV6 book - explains the main ideas of os design
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6/book-rev7.pdf
The material is compact: 92 pages source and 96 pages commentary.
I like it more than the Minix book! It's a true gem!
you also might want to take a look at SharpOS which is an operating system that they're writing in c#.
There are good resources for operating system fundamentals in books. Since there isn't much call to create new OS's from scratch you won't find a ton of hobbyist type information on the internet.
I recommend the standard text book, "Modern Operating Systems" by Tanenbaum. You may also be able to find "Operating System Elements" by Calingaert useful - it's a thin overview of a book which give a rough sketch of what an OS is from a designer's standpoint.
If you have any interest in real time systems (and you should at least understand the differences and reasons for real time OS's) then I'd also recommend "MicroC/OS-II" by Labrosse.
Edit:
Can you specify what you mean by "more technical"? These books give pseudo code implementation details, but are you looking for an example OS, or code snippets for a particular machine/language?
-Adam
Just coming from another question. I'd like to mention Pintos... I remembered my OS course with Nachos and Pintos seems to be the same kind of thing that can run on x86.
I found Robert Love's Linux Kernel Development quite interesting. It tells you about how the different subsystems in the Linux kernel works in a very down-to-earth way. Since the source is available Linux is a prime candidate for something to hack on.
Here are some other Stack Overflow pages worth incorporating into this discussion:
Roadblocks in creating a custom operating system
Developing an operating system for the x86 architecture
My operating systems course in undergrad had us building a number of subsystems for OS/161, a simple, BSD-like kernel that provides some of the basics while leaving the freedom to explore various design space decisions in implementing higher-level services.
Start hacking away at Minix. It's a lot smaller than Linux (obviously) and it's designed with teaching purposes in mind (some, at least). Not Minix 3 though, that's a whole different story.
Already answer, but when I took Operating Systems in college we started with an early linux kernel and added simplistic modern features (basic file systems, virtual memory, multitasking, mutexes). Good fun. You get to skip some of the REALLY crazy low level assembly only stuff for mucking w/ protected mode and page tables while still learned some of the guts.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/14002
http://kerneltrap.org/files/linux-0.01.tar.bz2
I would like to include this repo How-to-Make-a-Computer-Operating-System by Samy Pesse. Is a work-in-progress. Very interesting.
You might want to look at linuxfromscratch.
Linux From Scratch (LFS) is a project
that provides you with step-by-step
instructions for building your own
custom Linux system, entirely from
source code.
A simple and basic OS development tutorial designed to be a semester's project. It guides you through to build an OS with basic components. Very good start for beginners. Related paper is here.
One reasonably simple OS to study would be µC/OS. The book has a floppy with the source on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroC/OS-II
Check out the Managed Operating System Alliance (MOSA) Project at www.mosa-project.org. They are designing an AOT/JIT compiler and fully managed operating system in C#. Some of the developers are from the inactive SharpOS project.
I've toyed with Cosmos, which is "an operating system project implemented completely in CIL compliant languages." It's written in C#, so that was right up my alley. For someone like myself who has never attempted to build an operating system, it was actually pretty cool to be able to get a "Hello World" operating system running in no time.
Check out this site: http://osix.net/modules/article/?id=359
As mentioned above, the OSDev Wiki is (by far) the best source for OS development. For those of you who speak German, the lowlevel.eu Wiki is also great. Something relatively unknown Incitatus OS, a simple kernel with a tiny set of userspace apps. It's great to use for getting into the complicated topic of OS development.
Movitz is a Lisp environment written in Common Lisp and running "on the metal". Unfortunately, some links on the Movitz main page deny access, but you can find instructions on how to download and compile the source code from the trac page. Also, a ready image can be found on the archive of this page.
IMHO this is utmost interesting, as it brings back the Lisp machine concept on the currently available hardware. It failed commercially, but this does not prove to me that the idea was bad.
The Unix haters handbook is a fun book that semi-seriously berates the concept of Unix and its derivatives. Many sections argument about how better the Lisp machine concept was.
Here's a paper called "Writing a Simple Operating System From Scratch". It covers writing a bootloader, entering x86-32 protected mode, and writing a basic kernel in C. It seems to do a good job at explaining everything in detail.
The x86 JS simulator and ARM simulator can also be very useful to understand how different pieces hardware works and make tests without exiting your favourite browser.
Intresting Question for the programmers. See it will take long long long time to build OS like Windows or Mac but if you want build a simple ones then you can try your best
You need to focus on Assembly Language,C and C++. You should be expert in these languages.
First read a good book on how OS works[Google it], then read all the info from Wiki OS
Search in youtube "How to create your own OS in Assembly Language" watch the video, Eg. Video
Download Linux OS source code and compile it yourself and try to modify the code yourself
Now you are an experienced OS editor now download Minix and QNX and start developing with them and get their docs from here Minix Doc and QNX Doc
Now you have gained the master degree(Not completely just a little more to go) in creating OS now distribute this knownledge to your freinds and with their help try to create an OS as powerful as Mac, Linux or Windows
When you have made a basic operating system it's actually hard to continue because there isn't many ressources on making GUIs or porting libraries. But i think taking a look at ToAruOS would help a lot!
The code under the surface of that OS is so damn simple! but at the same time he has ported things like cairo, python, (not yet but soon) sdl, made share memory and he has also made his own widget toolkit. It's all written in C.
Another interesting OS would be pedigreeOS. It's made by JamesM (the man behind jamesM's kernel tutorial. While it has more features than ToaruOS it's also bigger and more confusing.
But anyway these 2 OS will help you a lot especially ToAruOS.
When I started working on my basic operating systems I needed a basic guide like Stepping stones for a basic operating system. It helped me not loose my head.
That if you want to make it from absolutely nothing (pure assembly code)