Does such a implementation of Forth exists that allows you to take full advantage of multicore processors?
I recently became aware of colorForth which is the latest invention from Mr Moore (not ANS compliant) and is used on his new multicore chips.
It features 144 small forth computers on a single chip (and no clock!) for high efficiency.
EDIT:
Actually, colorForth is the IDE used for the chips. The flavor of (color)Forth running on the chip is called arrayForth.
Apparently. I don't know much about it, see Multicore processors, FORTH programming, and the relationship between software and silicon (published 2008-09-24).
You want to take "full advantage" of multicore processors. The excuse for multicore programming is that you need performance (you can do multithreaded with just one CPU).
In that case, I don't think I'd use Forth, as it is fundamentally an interpreter (yes, a fairly fast one).
Worse, for modern processors, each Forth word-dispatch being an indirect call is likely a pipeline break, which really slams processor performance, and Forth word-execution operates on stack elements instead of registers. So by using Forth, you are giving up computational advantage compared to C or C++ or even Fortran. What this means is that you are almost gauranteed to have to use more than one CPU with Forth to match the performance of a more traditionally coded and compiled language. Why start with a disadvantage?
The guys that want to do MP with Python puzzle me for the same reason.
There are Forth implementations that run on the bare-metal that DO compile machine code, and if you do a bit of research before you start typing you will see that in-fact:
Forth was the personal system in use by Chuck Moore since 1958
Forth is a language, a compiler, and operating system, an interactive debugger (where you get this idea of it being "interpreted") a bare-metal-as-Chuck-intended Forth system gets even better when you consider that this entire WORLD needs only 2 registers, and ALU, and a Program Counter to run. Programming in Forth is completely different than the stuff your operating system is likely made out of and so I think one should really look at "bare-metal" or even native (yes there are native stack machine processors) Forths before judging what is what.
it was exactly these "bare-metal" Forth implementations what were used for decades and are still highly used today in embedded devices where your desktop OS should probably never go.
Multicore Forth programming is possible with iForth. There are 32/64 bit implementations that work on Win7, Linux, and OS X. iForth generates native code: http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/i4faq.html
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.
Although I have implemented many projects in C, I am completely new to operating systems. I tried real time linux on Discovery board (STM32) and got the correct results for blinking LED but I didn't really understand the whole process since I just followed the steps and could not find whole description for each step on the internet.
I want to implement scheduling on real time linux. What is the best way to start? Any sites, books, tutorials available?
Complete RTLinux process description will be appreciated.
Thanks in adv.
The transition from "bare metal" to OS based programming is something that I experienced in reverse. I started out a complete software guy, totally into the OS side of things and over time I have moved to the opposite of that (even designing circuits in VHDL!). My advice would be to start simple. Linux is pretty complex, and everywhere you look there are many layers of things all working together to deliver the final product. If you are dead set on a real time linux extension, I'd be happy to suggest https://xenomai.org/ which is a real time extension for linux.
However, to more specifically address your question about implementing scheduling in Linux, you can, but it will be a large amount of work and can be very complicated. The OS uses a completely fair scheduling process ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler ) and whenever you spin up a thread, it simply gets added to the list to run. This can differ slightly if you implement your code in kernel space as a driver, rely on hardware interrupts, etc., but in general, this is how Linux works. Real time generally means that it has the ability to assign threads one of several different priorities and utilize thread preemption fully at any given time which are concepts that aren't really a part of vanilla Linux. It has some notion of this, but it has limitations that can cause problems when you are looking for real time behavior from Linux.
What may be helpful to you is an RTOS. If you are looking for a full on Real Time Operating System, check out FreeRTOS http://www.freertos.org/ . It has a large community and supports a lot of different devices out of the box with a large amount of example code. They even support your specific board with an example package, so you can give it a shot with nothing to lose! http://www.freertos.org/FreeRTOS-for-Cortex-M3-STM32-STM32F100-Discovery.html . It gives you access to many OS ish constructs like network APIs, memory management, and threading without the overhead and latency of a huge OS. With an RTOS, you create tasks and assign them priorities so you become the scheduler and are no longer at the mercy of the OS. You run the OS, not the OS runs you (if that makes sense). Plus, the constructs offered within an RTOS will feel much like bare metal code and thus will be much easier to follow, understand, and fully learn. It is a more simple world to learn the base building blocks of a full blown OS such as Linux or Windows. If this option sounds good, I would suggest looking through the supported devices on FreeRTOS website and picking one you would like to experiment with and then go for it. I would highly recommend this as a way to learn about scheduling and OS constructs in general as it is as simple as you can get and open source. Once you have the basics of an RTOS down, buying a book about Linux specifically wouldn't be a bad idea. Although there are many free resources on the web related to learning about Linux, they are commonly contradictory, and can be misleading. Pile on learning Linux specific knowledge along with OS in general, and it can feel overwhelming. Starting simpler will help keep you from getting burnt out and minimize the amount of time you spend feeling lost. Linux is definitely a learning process, but like with any learning process, start simple, keep your ultimate goal in mind, make a plan, and take small, manageable steps along that plan until you look up and find yourself exactly where you want to be. Then go tackle the next mountain!
The real-time Linux landscape is quite confusing. 99.99% of the information out there is just plain obsolete.
First, there are lots of "microkernels" that run Linux as one task. (Such as the defunct RTLinux). The problem is that you must write your real-time task to a different API, and can't depend on anything in Linux, because Linux will be frozen in the background while your task runs. So unless your task is dead-simple ("stop the motors when I press this button"), this approach will cause more pain than gain.
Next, there is the realtime Linux patch set. This hasn't been doing so well. because of the next item:
Lastly, the current Linux kernel has gotten rid of the problems that caused people to need realtime in the past. You can even turn off Linux on one of your processors to have full control of the CPU. See also this paper.
To answer your question: I see two different paths you could take:
1) Start with a normal 3.xx Linux kernel and explore the various APIs and realtime techniques (i.e. realtime priorities, memory pinning, etc.) This can get you "close enough" for 99% of what people want "realtime" for. If it's good enough for high frequency trading, it's probably good enough for you.
2) If you have a hard realtime requirement and you are worried that Linux won't cut it, then (as Nick mentioned above), just go buy a processor and write your realtime code with no OS. By splitting up your "realtime" and "non-realtime" code onto different CPUs, you will make the whole system simpler and much more robust.
If you want to learn real-time operating systems then I suggest that you get an FPGA, for example the Altera DE2, and experiment with your own operating system and ucos. You can read a good text about embedded RTOS here.
You could also get a Linux Raspberry and write your own operating system for that.
I'm doing some research on multicore processors; specifically I'm looking at writing code for multicore processors and also compiling code for multicore processors.
I'm curious about the major problems in this field that would currently prevent a widespread adoption of programming techniques and practices to fully leverage the power of multicore architectures.
I am aware of the following efforts (some of these don't seem directly related to multicore architectures, but seem to have more to do with parallel-programming models, multi-threading, and concurrency):
Erlang (I know that Erlang includes constructs to facilitate concurrency, but I am not sure how exactly it is being leveraged for multicore architectures)
OpenMP (seems mostly related to multiprocessing and leveraging the power of clusters)
Unified Parallel C
Cilk
Intel Threading Blocks (this seems to be directly related to multicore systems; makes sense as it comes from Intel. In addition to defining certain programming-constructs, it also seems have features that tell the compiler to optimize the code for multicore architectures)
In general, from what little experience I have with multithreaded programming, I know that programming with concurrency and parallelism in mind is definitely a difficult concept. I am also aware that multithreaded programming and multicore programming are two different things. in multithreaded programming you are ensuring that the CPU does not remain idle (on a single-CPU system. As James pointed out the OS can schedule different threads to run on different cores -- but I'm more interested in describing the parallel operations from the language itself, or via the compiler). As far as I know you cannot truly do parallel operations. In multicore systems, you should be able to perform truly-parallel operations.
So it seems to me that currently the problems facing multicore programming are:
Multicore programming is a difficult concept that requires significant skill
There are no native constructs in today's programming languages that provide a good abstraction to program for a multicore environment
Other than Intel's TBB library I haven't found efforts in other programming-languages to leverage the power of multicore architectures for compilation (for example, I don't know if the Java or C# compiler optimizes the bytecode for multicore systems or even if the JIT compiler does that)
I'm interested in knowing what other problems there might be, and if there are any solutions in the works to address these problems. Links to research papers (and things of that nature) would be helpful. Thanks!
EDIT
If I had to condense my question down to one sentence, it would be this: What are the problems that face multicore programming today and what research is going on in the field to solve these problems?
UPDATE
It also seems to me that there are three levels where multicore needs to be concerned:
Language level: Constructs/concepts/frameworks that abstract parallelization and concurrency and make it easy for programmers to express the same
Compiler level: If the compiler is aware of what architecture it is compiling for, it can optimize the compiled code for that architecture.
OS level: The OS optimizes the running process and perhaps schedules different threads/processes to run on different cores.
I've searched on ACM and IEEE and have found a few papers. Most of them talk about how difficult it is to think concurrently and also how current languages don't have a proper way to express concurrency. Some have gone so far as to claim that the current model of concurrency that we have (threads) is not a good way to handle concurrency (even on multiple cores). I'm interested in hearing other views.
I'm curious about the major problems in this field that would currently prevent a widespread adoption of programming techniques and practices to fully leverage the power of multicore architectures.
Inertia. (BTW: that's pretty much the answer to all "what does prevent the widespread adoption" questions, whether that be models of parallel programming, garbage collection, type safety or fuel-efficient automobiles.)
We have known since the 1960s that the threads+locks model is fundamentally broken. By ~1980, we had about a dozen better models. And yet, the vast majority of languages that are in use today (including languages that were newly created from scratch long after 1980), offer only threads+locks.
The major problems with multicore programming is the same as writing any other concurrent applications, but whereas before it was uncommon to have multiple cpus in a computer, now it is hard to find any modern computer with only one core in it, so, to take advantage of multicore, multiple cpu architectures there are new challenges.
But, this problem is an old problem, whenever computer architectures go beyond compilers then it seems the fallback solution is to move back toward functional programming, as that programming paradigm, if strictly followed, can make very parallelizable programs, as you don't have any global mutable variables, for example.
But, not all problems can be done easily using FP, so the goal then is how to easily get other programming paradigms to be easy to use on multicores.
The first thing is that many programmers have avoided writing good mulithreaded applications, so there isn't a strongly prepared number of developers, as they learned habits that will make their coding harder to do.
But, as with most changes to the cpu, you can look at how to change the compiler, and for that you can look at Scala, Haskell, Erlang and F#.
For libraries you can look at the parallel framework extension, by MS as a way to make it easier to do concurrent programming.
It is at work, but I recently either IEEE Spectrum or IEEE Computer had articles on multicore programming issues, so look at what IEEE and ACM articles have been written on these issues, to get more ideas as to what is being looked at.
I think the biggest impediment will be the difficulty to get programmers to change their language as FP is very different than OOP.
One place for research besides developing languages that will work well this way, is how to handle multiple threads accessing memory, but, as with much in this area, Haskell seems to be at the forefront in testing ideas for this, so you can look at what is going on with Haskell.
Ultimately there will be new languages, and it may be that we have DSLs to help abstract the developer more, but how to educate programmers on this will be a challenge.
UPDATE:
You may find Chapter 24. Concurrent and multicore programming of interest, http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multicore-programming.html
One of the answers mentioned the Parallel Extensions for the .NET Framework and since you mentioned C#, it's definitely something I would investigate. Microsoft has done something interesting things there, though I have to think many of their efforts seem more suited for language enhancements in C# than a separate and distinct library for concurrent programming. But I think their efforts are worth applauding and respect that we're early here. (Disclaimer: I used to be the marketing director for Visual Studio about 3 years ago)
The Intel Thread Building Blocks are also quite interesting (Intel recently released a new version, and I'm excited to head down to Intel Developer Forum next week to learn more about how to use it properly).
Lastly, I work for Corensic, a software quality startup in Seattle. We've got a tool called Jinx that is designed to detect concurrency errors in your code. A 30-day trial edition is available for Windows and Linux, so you might want to check it out. (www.corensic.com)
In a nutshell, Jinx is a very thin hypervisor that, when activated, slips in between the processor and operating system. Jinx then intelligently takes slices of execution and runs simulations of various thread timings to look for bugs. When we find a particular thread timing that will cause a bug to happen, we make that timing "reality" on your machine (e.g., if you're using Visual Studio, the debugger will stop at that point). We then point out the area in your code where the bug was caused. There are no false positives with Jinx. When it detects a bug, it's definitely a bug.
Jinx works on Linux and Windows, and in both native and managed code. It is language and application platform agnostic and can work with all your existing tools.
If you check it out, please send us feedback on what works and doesn't work. We've been running Jinx on some big open source projects and already are seeing situations where Jinx can find bugs 50-100 times faster than simply stress testing code.
The bottleneck of any high-performance application (written in C or C++) designed to make efficient use of more than one processor/core is the memory system (caches and RAM). A single core usually saturates the memory system with its reads and writes so it is easy to see why adding extra cores and threads causes an application to run slower. If a queue of people can pass through a door one a time, adding extra queues will not only clog the door but also make the passage of any one individual through the door less efficient.
The key to any multi-core application is optimization of and economizing on memory accesses. This means structuring data and code to work as much as possible inside their own caches where they don't disturb the other cores with acceses to the common cache (L3) or RAM. Once in a while a core needs to venture there but the trick is to reduce those situations as much as possible. In particular, data needs to be structured around and adapted to cache lines and their sizes (currently 64 bytes) and code needs to be compact and not call and jump all over the place which also disrupts pipelines.
My experience is that efficient solutions are unique to the application in question. The generic guidelines (above) are a basis on which to construct code but the tweak changes resulting from profiling conclusions will not be obvious to those who were not themselves involved in the optimizing work.
Look up fork/join frameworks and work-stealing runtimes. Two names for the same, or at least related, approaches, which is to recursively subdivide large tasks into lightweight units, such that all available parallelism is exploited, without having to know in advance how much parallelism there is. The idea is that it should run at serial speed on a uniprocessor, but get a linear speedup with multiple cores.
Sort of a horizontal analogue of cache-oblivious algorithms if you look at it right.
But i'd say the main problem facing multicore programming is that the great majority of computations remain stubbornly serial. There's just no way to throw multiple cores at those computations and make them stick.
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.