Although Racket permits one to create GUI apps (even games) I am wondering whether it is suitable for releasing commercial applications visually on par with Things or OmniOutliner. Would such an app feel native or would it look like an awkward stepchild not belonging on the platform? For example the Gnome apps on Ubuntu blend seamlessly into the platform even though some are written in Ruby or Python.
Can Racket pull this off and if so can someone point me to an example? I'm trying to determine how suitable Racket is for creating -- from a visual perspective -- commercial-quality applications. Without this one could not readily use it to make apps for sale and this seems to reduce the language to backend and academic use.
Perhaps you can get inspiration from SirMail?
On Windows Racket will use the native Windows API.
On OS X it will use Cocoa on Mac OS X, and and on Linux it uses Gtk.
This gallery was made on Linux; and here’s a similar gallery on OS X.
The best example I'm aware of is the Dr. Racket IDE you got with Racket. It runs on multiple platforms. It includes full source code.
The Racket GUI is written to produce programs that run on Windows, OS X and Linux without changing a single line in the code.
Examining Things and OmniOutliner I see that the applications are OS X only.
This imply that they use OS X specific GUI elements - the conclusion must therefore be, that you can't produce just as polished interfaces if you stick to racket/gui.
However there is a silver lining. Racket includes an Object C FFI, so you can use the OS X specific GUI elements directly. Since you are interested in writing an OS X only application (I presume), you have more leeway than an OS agnostic GUI library.
As an example of embedding OS X specific GUI elements into a Racket program, I'll point you towards this project which embeds WebKit into Racket: https://github.com/shekari/racket-webkit
Not a very impressive GUI, but this fits the "end user" side of the question:
Towers game on Ubuntu. (source code)
Much less on the "end user" side, a GUI designer for Racket applications (old screenshots on Windows).
Related
Some background:
I am a Computer Engineering major attending school right now, and I just completed a project that created a microprocessor with a super simple instruction set that ran on an FPGA. I chose to implement a simple file storage scheme, a VGA text only display output, and a PS/2 keyboard input. I wrote two main programs, a firmware that was in ROM in the processor and a kernel that provided a bunch of library type functions, and was capable of loading and executing files from the filesystem. This project was challenging and overall a lot of fun.
My Question:
I want to do some super low level programming on a modern computer, but I can't seem to find any resources or documentation that help me get started. To be clear, I want to find the proper documentation that would help me to write a program in C, x86, or x86-64 assembly that I could compile, and format into some form of bootable data. I know this is a daunting task, and typically not something a hobbyist would take on, but I know that it's possible (Terry Davis's TempleOS).
Are there any websites or books that I can read that will contain the specifics needed to make something like this?
Look out, you might just catch the bug. OS Development, though having a very small demographic, is still quite a thriving hobby. Once you start, you may not ever give it up.
Since your subject line states 64-bit and you use the term modern hardware, be advised that modern hardware no longer has the older style BIOS, where the developer wrote the boot process which included the video out, file system in, and other standard routines. Modern hardware now uses an EFI firmware which does all of the booting for you, including the reading from the file system(s). For modern hardware, OS development really starts with the OS Loader, the part that loads the OS, and this is done in a high level language such as C/C++. Very little if any assembly at all, in fact that is its point/purpose.
Don't get too discouraged, currently a lot of computers still allow the old style boot. However, the old style boot starts in 16-bit mode, moves to 32-bit mode, then if desired, moves to long mode (64-bit). There also are emulators that you can use so you don't have to have a separate system, just to test your development. I prefer Bochs myself, but I am a little bias since I wrote some of the code for it, namely most of the (original) USB emulation.
If you wish to dip your toes into this hobby, there are numerous places to start. I personally wrote a few books on the subject. They show you how to start from when the time the POST gives up control to your boot code, up to the point of a minimal Round Robin style task/thread switching OS, with all the necessary hardware and software basics to do so. There is a forum to OS Development, along with its wiki.
Again, a project like this is not for the faint at heart, though it is an enjoyable hobby most have found to be a very good learning experience.
Do interpreted languages such as Java and Python need an operating system to work?
For example, on a bare-metal ARM microcontroller, can an interpreter be installed such that we can have both compiled code such as C, and interpreted code such as Python working together, Or is an OS needed to support this?
Of course you can write an interpreter that runs on bare-metal, it is just that if the platform does not have an OS any run-time support the language needs must be part of the interpreter. To the extent in some cases that such an interpreter might essentially be an OS. That is if it provides the services to operate a system, it could be called an operating system.
It is not perhaps as simple as interpreted vs compiled. Java for example runs on a virtual machine and is "compiled" to bytecode. The bytecode is interpreted (or just-in-time compiled in some cases), rather then the Java source directly. In an embedded system, it is possible that you would deploy cross-compiled bytecode on the target rather then the source. Certainly however JVMs exist for bare-metal. Some support multi-threading through a third party RTOS, others either have that support built-in or do not support threading at all.
There are interpreters for cut-down subsets of JavaScript and Python that run on bare-metal microcontrollers. I am not sure about full implementations, but it is technically possible given sufficient run-time support even if not explicitly implemented. To fully support some of these languages along with all the standard and third-party libraries and frameworks a developer might expect, may require so much run-time support and resource that it is simpler to deploy and OS, so implementations for resource constrained systems are often subsets or have restricted libraries.
Java needs a VM - virtual machine. It isn't interpreted, but executes byte code. Interpreted would mean grabbing the source in run-time as it goes, like BASIC.
When Java was new and exciting around year 2000, everyone thought it would be the next big general-purpose language, replacing C++. The syntax was so clean, it was "pure OO" and not some "filthy hybrid".
It was the major buzz word of the time. Schools stopped teaching C and C++. MCU manufacturers started to make chips with Java VM in hardware. Microsoft made their own Java "standard". Everyone was high on the Java hype.
Then as the Internet hype as whole collapsed in 2002, it took the Java hype with it. In the sober hang-over afterwards, people started to realize that things like byte code, VMs and garbage collection probably don't belong on bare metal systems.
They went back to using compiled C for hardware-related programming. Or in fact they never stopped, since Java never quite made it there, save for some oddball exotic architectures.
Java remained used only in the areas were it was suitable, namely web, desktop and mobile development. And so it got a second golden age when the smart phone hype struck around 2010.
No. See for example picoJava, which is one of several solutions for running Java natively. You can't get closer to bare metal than running bytecode on the CPU.
No. Some 8-bit computers had interpreted languages in ROM despite not having anything reasonably resembling a modern operating system. The Apple 2 is one example. You could boot the system without any disks or tapes, and it would go straight to a BASIC prompt, where you could write basic (no pun intended) programs.
Note that an operating system is somewhat of a vague term when speaking about these days - these 8-bit computers did have some level of firmware, and this firmware did provide some OS-type functionality like access to basic peripherals. In these days, what we now know as an OS was more commonly called a "DOS" - a Disk Operating System. MS-DOS is one of them, as well as Apple's ProDOS. These DOS's evolved into our modern-day operating systems (e.g. Windows 95 was based on top of MS-DOS, while modern Windows versions derive from a separate branch that was largely re-implemented with more modern techniques), so one could claim that their ancestors are the closest they had to what we now call an OS.
But what is an interpreter but a piece of software?
In a more theoretical sense, an interpreter is simply software - a program that takes input and produces output. Suppose you were to implement a custom solid-state Turing Machine. In this case, your "input" would be the program to be interpreted, and the "output" would be the program's behavior. If "software" can run without an operating system, then an interpreter can.
Is this model a little simplified? Of course. The difference is a matter of degree, not nature. Add very basic user input and output capabilities (e.g. a TTY) and you have the foundation to implement all, or nearly all, of the basic functionality of a language such as Java byte code, Python, or BASIC. The main things you would be missing are libraries and whatnot that depend on things like screen manipulation, multiprocessing, and networking, but you could handle them with time too.
I have been programming in java for 3 years but I have no experience with other languages. I want to know what I need to study in order to be able to make an operating system. Am most likely going to make my operating system based on Linux kernel. What programming languages should I be familiar with and what aspects of the pc hardware should I study. if you know any online tutorials or good books please mention them.
The answer depends on how far you want to go and how much you want to write yourself vs using existing code.
The most straightforward way is to have a look at Arch Linux or Gentoo and build your own, custom Linux setup. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~2 hours
You could, otherwise, compile the Linux kernel, build some software packages and put it all together yourself and create your own Linux distro - i.e your own operating system in a sense. Linux From Scratch will be an invaluable resource if this is what you decide to do. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~2-5 days
Say that's too easy for you but you're not ready to delve into the nitty-gritty of kernel development. You can write your own applications that run on top of the Linux kernel. Typically, you'd need to know C/C++ but any language that supports running on Linux/compiling to a Linux executable will work. Heck, you could chuck a (or write your own) Java runtime on and write your whole 'operating system'/user-space in Java. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~6-12 months
What about if you want to get down to programming your own kernel from scratch? Heck, Linux is overrated and you want to write your own kernel and it's going to be the next best thing! You would want to learn a bit about the platform you're developing on. At the very least, you'll need to know the assembly instructions of some special operations for your platform that can't be done natively in C like switching CPU modes. You'll definitely need to read up on the OS dev wiki for this and you should have a fair decent computer science background.
At this point, you shouldn't need too much other than a good tutorial, C, a little assembly, reference manuals for the hardware you're hoping to support and 3+ years of computer science background to get you started. Your boot loader that's booting your kernel should handle most of the hardware initialisation. Bootloaders like GRUB (I'm assuming you're developing on a x86 system) does so much for you that it can probably just jump to your kernel main function straight away without you having to do too much. Again, if you wanted, you could port or write your own Java runtime in C and write the rest of your kernel in Java! Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~3-5 years
But, let's just say you're screaming for more pain and you want to write an operating system really from scratch and you don't want no bootloader doing a lot of the legwork. What do you need? Firstly, you'll need a lot more reference manuals. And you'll need to read up on a lot more assembly. Especially for Intel processors, there's a lot of work involved bringing the system up from 16bit mode to 32/64bit protected mode with paging (which is what I assume you want). You'll also want to know about every tiny quirk and weirdness of your platform that will affect your OS (these are often not documented; hooray!). Plus, all of the above. In short, you will need to study everything. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: 5+ years
Of course, this post is just scraping the surface of what is needed to even bring up a basic operating system capable of say, opening a web browser. The approximates roughly assumes a minimal working system is something capable of running a graphical web browser and will vary depending on how much you want to write.
I don't mean to be condescending but this is the kind of reality you'll be facing if you decide to write your own operating system. Nevertheless, it is a valuable learning experience if you can break the initial barrier or even just trying to set up your own Linux system.
First, I would say that you install any Linux OS on your system and get accustomed with it.
Second, for OS development you have to know C language. As for the Assembly language, it depends from where you start the OS development. If you will be using available bootloaders, then I don't think that you will be requiring to learn assembly language.
This is a website on OS development: http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page
There you will find all the stuff you need to know for the OS development. And also how to develop OS step-by-step.
Now-a-days, a "Eudyptula Challenge" is going on. It is a series of programming exercise for the linux kernel. You can find more info here: http://eudyptula-challenge.org/
I want to get into OS development. However, I'm not interested in all the quirks with the x86 architecture. I'm interested in the design of the OS.
So I looked around for an (x86, or x86_64 would be even better) OS toolkit. Something that deals with switching to protected mode and configuring interrupts through simple C function calls.
The only thing that I was able to find was this toolkit that hasn't been touched since 2002. Before I get started with my OS, I wanted to make sure that there isn't a more recent/better toolkit to aid in OS development (for x86 or x86-64). So, is there a better toolkit than this, and if I use these kinds of toolkits, what kinds of problems might I encounter along the road (that I wouldn't have run into had I done all the gritty work myself)?
There are no (good) OS toolkits; and I'm not sure a good OS toolkit would make any practical sense (e.g. it'd need to cover all possible OS designs rather than just one, and would be more complex than any single OS could ever be).
The good news is that you probably don't need a toolkit anyway. If you aren't planning to write your own boot code (e.g start with GRUB), then the amount of assembly you need isn't very much and most of it can be taken from elsewhere fairly easily (e.g. http://wiki.osdev.org/Inline_Assembly/Examples).
I probably shouldn't tell you the bad news; but a scheduler is a small part of a kernel, and a kernel is a small part of an OS. For example, a scheduler might be 2000 lines of code, but Linux is about 50 million lines of code, and if you add stuff like Apache, X, Gnome/KDE, Mozilla, etc on top of that then you can imagine how much potential for "gritty work" might be involved in an entire OS... :-)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am planning to develop an operating system for the x86 architecture.
What options of programming languages do I have?
What types of compilers are there available, preferably on a Windows environment?
Are there any good sources that will help me learn more about operating system development?
Is it better to test my operating system on a Virtual Machine or on physical hardware?
Any suggestions?
For my final year project in collage I developed a small x86 OS with a virtual memory manager, a virtual file system and fully preemptive multitasking. I made it open source and the code is heavily commented, check out its source forge page at:
https://github.com/stephenfewer/NoNameOS
From my experience I can recommend the following:
You will need x86 assembly language for various parts, this in unavoidable, but can be kept to a minimum. Fairly quickly you will get running C code, which is a proven choice for OS development. Once you have some sort of memory manager available you can go into C++ if you like (you need some kind of memory manager for things like new and delete).
No matter what language you choose you will still need assembly & C to bring a system from boot where the BIOS leaves you into any useable form.
Ultimately, the primary language you choose will depend on the type of OS you want to develop.
My development environment was the Windows port of the GNU development tools DJGPP along with the NASM assembler. For my IDE I used IBM's Eclipse with the CDT plugin which provides a C/C++ development environment within Eclipse.
For testing I recommend BOCHS, an open source x86 PC emulator. It lets you boot up your OS quickly which is great for testing and can be integrated into eclipse so you can build and run your OS at the push of a button. I would also recommend using both VMWare and a physical PC occasionally as you can pick up on some subtle bugs that way.
P.S. OS development is really fun but is very intensive, mine took the best part of 12 months. My advice is to plan well and your design is key! enjoy :)
Language and compiler depend entirely on what you're attempting to accomplish. I would suggest, though, that you might be approaching the problem from too low a level.
There are materials out there on operating system fundamentals. MIT has OpenCourseware on the subject. Read through Andrew Tannenbaum's Operating Systems series, and look at things like Minix.
Get an idea for what's out there. Start tinkering with things. Borrow ideas, and see where they go. You can reinvent the wheel if you really want, but you'll learn more by building on the works of others.
It doesn't really matter, what language you choose. If the language is Turing-complete, then you can write an OS in it.
However, the expressiveness of the language will make certain kinds of designs very easy or very hard to implement. For example, the "liveliness" and dynamism of the old Smalltalk OSs depends on the fact that they are implemented in Smalltalk. You could do that in C, too, but it would probably be so hard that you wouldn't even think about it. JavaScript or Ruby OTOH would probably be a great fit.
Microsoft Research's Singularity is another example. It simply couldn't be implemented in anything other than Sing#, Spec# and C# (or similar languages), because so much of the architecture is dependent on the static type safety and static verifiability of those languages.
One thing to keep in mind: the design space for OSs implemented in C is pretty much fully explored. There's literally thousands of them. In other languages, however, you might actually discover something that nobody has discovered before! There's only about a dozen or so OSs written in Java, about half a dozen in C#, something on the order of two OSs in Haskell, only one in Python and none in Ruby or JavaScript.
Try writing an OS in Erlang or Io, and see how that influences your thinking about Operating Systems!
There is an OS course offered at the University of Maryland that utilizes GeekOS. This is a small, extensively commented OS designed for educational purposes which can be run using the Bochs or QEMU emulators.
For an example of how it is used in a course, check out a previous offering of the course at the class webpage. There, you will find assignments where you have to add different functionality to GeekOS.
Its a great way to get familiar with a small and simple OS that runs on the x86 architecture.
You might want to look up XINU. it's a tiny OS for x86 that isn't really used for anything other than to be dissected by students.
Use ANSI C, and start off with an emulator.
When you port over to a real machine, there will be some assembler code. Context switching and interrupt handling (for instance) is easier to write in assembler.
Andy Tannenbaum has written a good book on OS. Many other good ones exist.
Good luck! There is nothing quite like haveing written your own OS, however small.
Also check out the OSDev.org which have all information you need to get started.
I've done that once for a 386SX, which was on a PCI board. A good source on how to start a X86 cpu in protected mode is the source code of linux. It's just a few assembly statements. After that you can use gcc to compile your C code. The result is objectcode in ELF format. I wrote my own linker, to make a program out of the objectcode. And yes, it worked! Good luck.
Be sure to check out the answers to my question:
How to get started in operating system development
Without a doubt, I'd use Ada. It's the best general-purpose systems-programming language I have come across, bar none. One example, Ada's much better for specifying bit layout of objects in a record than C. Ada also supports overlaying records on specific memory locations. C requires you to play with pointers to acheive the same effect. That works, but is more error-prone. Ada also has language support for interrupts.
Another: Safety. Ada defaults to bound checking array assignments, but allows you to turn it off when you need it. C "defaults" to no bound checking on arrays,so you have to do it yourself manually whenever you want it. Time has shown that this is not the right default. You will forget one where it is needed. Buffer overflow exploits are the single most common security flaw used by crackers. They have whole websites explainng how to find and use them.
As for learning about doing this, the two books I'm aware of are XINU (Unix backwards, nothing to do with Scientology), and Project Oberon. The first was used in my Operating Systems graduate course, and the second was written by Nikalus Wirth, creator of Pascal.
If you are making a full OS, you will need to use a range of languages. I would expect Assembly, C and C++ at the very least.
I would use a Virtual Machine for most of the testing.
C most probably...all major OS-es have been written in C/C++ or Objective-C(Apple)
If you want write an OS then you need a couple of people. A OS can not write a single people. I think it is better to work on existing OS projects
Reactos --> C, Assembler
SharpOS --> C#
JNode --> Java
This is only a short list of OS projects. How you can see there is a project for every possible language.