Re: 2.7 (=~e)

On 2008-02-08, Evgeny Kurbatov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it is impossible to avoid the mid-level because in the near
> future there will be a lot of platforms which are differs on a hardware
> level (e.g. mobiles, desktops, computing nets, brain chips etc), and a
> lot of low-level OSes on it.  We need a kind of an API-buffer like .NET
> for portability of a software.  So the point of application of kernel
> development will shift to development of a kernel of that API-buffer, IMHO.

Low-level doesn't mean completely unportable/hardware-level. Just very low
abstraction level, just like C. High level by contrast is very high
abstraction level.

hardware or ultra-low-level 
           = asm / port-poking / "use the source"
low-level  = C / exokernel / decent config files
mid-level  = C++ / linux megamonolith / wimpshit
high-level = Haskell 
             / high level services on top
               of a low-level or mid-level kernel ... or Haskell :)
             / just doing the right thing

Or something like that. Obviously the level depends on the 
perspective.

-- 
Tuomo