Re: Information on implementing L4

Andrew Warkentin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.micro-kernel.l4.devel
Message-ID <CAD-qYGrg0UOnhCC7kG9peAJWS+JJfPp0AYodwn-UpbxMMKAQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
(accidentally replied privately instead of to the list; I really don't
get why "reply to list" isn't usually a thing; it should be the
default when replying to a message from a list)
On 9/13/18, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Also, there's not necessarily a performance penalty in CLR because it's
> JIT
> to native code.  The CLR isn't actually interpreting bytecode as it goes;
> rather it's compiling the program, storing that compiled program in
> memory,
> and entering the compiled native code.  The outcome is the same as
> compiling a language to a native machine language.
>

It's certainly closer to native code than a pure interpreter in
performance and may be comparable in some situations, but I was pretty
sure that the overall performance was still somewhat weaker,
especially when you're dealing with real-time code.

>
> I designed a way for the CLR to self-host:  it'd be written in C#, and
> running on itself.  This is still theoretical, of course.
>

I'd think you'd have to statically compile it to native code first.

To me, language-based OSes have always seemed interesting but a bit
impractical and limiting. A language-based OS would face more of a
challenge when it comes to success in the real world than a
conventional OS would (that's one reason why I'm writing an advanced
Unix-like OS, since that is what is most likely to be used in the real
world).
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.