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 know that this is subjective and all, but still, can you provide some list of serious applications that were written in Lisp (perhaps along with what Lisp it is)?
Emacs.
At least parts of it are written in Emacs Lisp.
ITA Software's airline-fare search service. See here to understand why this is impressive.
LISP itself! :)
DART. A logistics app written in Common Lisp for the first gulf war, to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. One could say that the war started when this app was ready. The developers worked under intense time pressure to make it possible.
This single application is said to have paid back for all (!) US government investment in AI research.
I'm particularly fond of Maxima. Another nice project I've discovered relatively recently is Nyquist.
One of the most impressive Lisp applications is surely Cyc. Cyc is a project started by Doug Lenat that tries to put common-sense knowledge into a knowledge-based system. Not just a bit, but really really lots of knowledge. Humans have learned a lot of widely different things and it was seen a limitation to artificial intelligence software to not know anything of that. What is the typical color of honey? Do we sit on a chair or under a chair? A cup of fresh coffee is hot. When it rains outside, it does not rain inside. Sea water contains salt, but water in a pond does not. Most birds can fly. Some birds can't fly. It is surprising how many of these facts, rules and concepts people know.
Cyc is under continuous development since 1984 and the knowledge base contains (numbers are from 2004) more than 2.5 million facts and rules. It also contains more than 150 thousand concepts (similar to classes in OOP). Cyc is developed in SubL (a dialect of Common Lisp).
Knowledge is entered in CycL (a declarative logic based language). Specially trained people are entering knowledge. Cyc checks that this new knowledge is not in conflict with existing knowledge. It can also derive new conclusions and one can query it. For its answers it can also generate explanations. Cyc has also many domain-specific heuristics implemented.
In the early days the project started developing on Lisp Machines, but today the software is portable and is also available to interested students and researches (OpenCyc and ResearchCyc).
Lisp Machines were used by NASA to check Space Shuttle starts. From a Symbolics press release from 1990:
"Recently the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) used Symbolics'
high-definition technology to analyze HDTV video images of the
Discovery launch in real-time. This high-definition system enabled
NASA engineers to get an instant replay of critical launch systems.
The engineers were able to enhance and enlarge high-resolution images
of the lift-off in order to analyze the condition of and spot
potential problems with space shuttle tiles."
They used a bunch of Lisp Machines with special image processing boards.
Sawfish was GNOME's default window manager long time ago. Now they default to Metacity, but you may still use Sawfish (also standalone) and it is still actively developed.
Sawfish is very feature-rich and customizable. Just what you would expect from a LISP window manager.
What eventually became Yahoo! shopping was done with Lisp. See the original author's description
AutoCAD
G2
Yahoo Store
Obidos, The Original Amazon Web Server
This according to Steve Yegge.
http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/tour-de-babel
Whitehouse Publication Server
During the Clinton administration a Lisp application was used to inform the US citizens about government news. The application was written in Common Lisp and ran on top of the CL-HTTP web server on two Symbolics Lisp Machines (later on the Open Genera virtual Lisp Machine). It also used the Statice object-oriented database. The application provided a taxonomy of government areas which could be queried with a web or an email interface for publications. For example citizens could find out what the vice president Al Gore said about environmental issues in a certain week. This was application was shut down by George W. Bush when he came into office.
Orbitz.com?
Another application I really like is PWGL.
PWGL is a visual programming language for computer aided composition and sound synthesis. It is a LispWorks application, which is available for Windows and Mac OS X (free download). It uses a lot of sophisticated graphics (done in OpenGL) for example in its advanced note editor. It can process and create sounds. It also can use Midi input and output. It comes with a really large amount of examples in its tutorial. If you have LispWorks, you can also load the binaries and write your own code using it.
The capabilities of the application are really amazing and if you are willing to learn its usage, it is hours of fun for the hobby composer and hobby sound designer.
Probably, not the most impressive, but really worth mentioning, considering, that it's mostly a one-man effort: http://piano.aero/
It's hard to say which Lisp software is exactly most impressive, but I would add Symbolics Genera and related software to the list of achievements worth mentioning. Also don't forget SLIME.
See this question for a list of many commercial uses of Lisp.
IRCAM's OpenMusic (computer-aided composition environment).
The matchmaking server for Zone: The Battleground is written in Common Lisp. Their website.
http://www.thanandar.de/
LISP, or at least the LISP evaluator.
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
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.
Never been a lisp user, so don't take me as too dense while reading this. However;
What is lisp used for today?
I know there are several variants of the language in existence, at least one which will keep it alive commercially for a while longer (AutoLisp, VisualLisp - pretty big support from Autodesk)... But I don't meet everyday people using it. So if you could shed some light on the matter:
What is its primary target market nowadays?
And what do you believe its future will be?.. Will it become just another support language in few apps, or is it going somewhere?
Also, apart from "an editor whose name shall not be spoken";
What other apps keep it as a support language ?
The Lisp dialect Clojure seems to be growing in popularity - you might ask out at http://clojure.org/ in one of the forums to see what real-world apps people are building with it.
One example from my lisp projects:
ShareBot: It downloads stock market data, analyses it and trades automatically. Credits money into my bank account every month!
Aircraft Design : http://www.piano.aero/
LispWorks lists several applications : http://www.lispworks.com/success-stories/index.html
Franz technologies are widely applicable : http://www.franz.com/
I wanted to typeset some music last week, and the program with the best reputation (free or otherwise) seemed to be Lilypond. I was pleasantly surprised to see it's largely written in, and customizable with, Scheme.
Mostly for configuring and extending Emacs!
*ducks*
CoCreate Modeling, now CREO Elements/Direct Modeling, an extensive 3D CAD application uses Common Lisp as its extension language. AFAIK there are now 7M+ LOC in Common Lisp for that application. Actually Common Lisp is not only the extension language, but large parts of the application are written in Common Lisp (plus some C++).
Other than that Lisp is a family of diverse dialects with diverse implementations (Scheme, Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Visual Lisp, Clojure, Logo, ...) and several others.
Strengths are for example:
symbolic computing (Maxima, Reduce, Axiom, ACL2, ...)
AI, Semantic Web, ... (see the customer stories of Franz for some examples)
CAD (AutoCAD, CoCreate, and several others)
Music (OpenMusic, Common Music, PWGL, ...)
graphical applications (see the LispWorks customer stories for some examples)
development environments (Emacs and others)
Education (DrScheme, ...)
Also see the topics of the International Lisp conference 2009. This should give you an impression what people are using Lisp for and what new ideas they are thinking about.
Seems to be existent in the job market
24 jobs on dice.
Common Lisp isn't widely used in the field at all, but here is one of the most succesful applications I know of.
ITA Software: Airfare Shopping Engine and Franz lisp has a list of others.
Today lisp is used AI System where the sympolic Data explanation is used.Mainly Lisp is devloped by show the functioning of List. but it use as a symbolic representative language
It is used for anything ant everything that all other programming languages are used for, including web, games, internal applications, ...
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.
With the interest of creating a roguelike RPG (such as Nethack, Rogue, and ADOM), which programming language would be most suitable and why?
With the language that you choose, be sure to list any libraries or facets of the language that make it particularly well-suited.
Way back in the day I tried to write Roguelike games using QuickBASIC out of all things (it was 1988.) Not the recommended approach...
There are still some development circles out there. Here's an FAQ on Roguelike Development and also a blog dedicated to the same.
My language of use (I'm trying to create roguelike too) is Python, because:
It's high level programming language, I don't need to think about memory allocation all the time, etc, but keep my mind on algorithms.
There's tons of useful libraries for almost everything. Recently I've found TDL/libtcod which can be useful for roguelike development.
With bindings you can easily use C/C++ libraries or even write few critical functions in C/C++, and use them.
It's the most readable programming language I've ever seen.
While programming in Python I've learned to use internal documentation. It's very helpful thing, I just read my code few months later and I still know what it's doing.
That's a very personal choice as always :-)
I wrote my Roguelike game (Tyrant) in Java for the following reasons:
Very portable (even with graphics)
Garbage collection / memory management
Lots of good free / open source libraries available (helpful for algorithms, data structures and manipulating save game files etc.)
It's a statically typed language - this has performance and robustness benefits which I judged to be worth the additional coding complexity
I wanted to hone my Java skills more generally for use in other projects
EDIT: For those interested it is open source, all code is available at SourceForge
Well I've made a couple roguelikes in C, spending a fair amount of time at roguebasin, which is a great site for anything related to roguelike development.
As for what language you should use, I don't really see it making a huge difference. I pick C because of the portability, and a lot of libraries work well with it.. But an object oriented language can clean up some things that you may not want to keep track of.
There aren't any languages that I would consider to be specifically greater than the rest for roguelikes. If you're making it graphical, you may prefer something that has that built-in, such as flash / silverlight. But even then there are libraries for any other languages that bring them to about the same degree of difficulty in that regard.
So I'd say take a language you know and like, or that you don't know and want to learn..
Most of these answers are great, but there's something to be said for the combined power of object-oriented stuff and low-level commands that can be abused in C++. If you're looking for some inspiration, the C sourcecode to NetHack is widely available and documented well enough that you can certainly poke around to learn some things. That said, it's a huge project that's been growing for decades, and not everything is as clean as you're going to want things for your own project - don't get roped into making poor design choices based off of what you find in NetHack.
Honestly, though, in terms of what you use it probably doesn't matter at all - though I'd highly recommend using an OO language. There's so much crap to handle in a roguelike (heck, any CRPG really) that OOP is the easiest way of staying sane.
The original nethack was written in C, and the source is available if you want to get some ideas about how it was written, and the challenges you may find which might be a good way to start deciding on a language.
My first question would be whether the game is going to have a web based UI or be some kind of console/window affair like the original Rogue-like games? If the former I would say that any language you're comfortable with would be a good choice. Ruby on Rails, Python/Django, PHP/CakePHP, etc. would all be great.
But if the answer is the latter, this is a game that you want people to be able to download and install locally, I'm going to go with Java. It's a great language with no memory management for you to deal with. It achieves very high performance thanks to just-in-time compilation and optimization, and it has an extremely rich library to help you with data structures, Swing makes for some really beautiful UIs, and the 2D library allows for the most rich cross-platform rendering outside of PostScript. It also has the availability across Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux that you're not going to get from some other choices.
Finally, distribution of your application is easy via Java Web Start as well, so people can download and install the game with just a couple of clicks once they have Java and keep it on their machine to run as long as they like.
For making any game, any language will be right if :
you can use it (you are able to use it, by knowledge or if it's easy enough to learn right now for you or your team)
it produce applications that runs on your client's computer
it can easily produce applications that runs fast enough for your game's needs.
I think that for a Rogue-Like, any language you know will be right as far as it runs on you target. Performances are not really a problem in this kind of game. World generation can require high performance if your world generation is really complex though...
just go with something that will handle the low-level details for you. whatever you know should work.
hey, they can write one in javascript.
I recommend Actionscript for those games.
You could consider Silverlight.
It sits on top of C# and .Net so theres not much need to worry about memory management. With SL you'll get built in support for scene graph type rendering - culling of things not on screen, Key board, mouse events, clicks on objects etc.
There's an initial learning curve, but I find it's a great environment to work in.
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.