On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:22:36AM +0800, 明覺 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Douglas A. Tutty<dtu...@vianet.ca> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:58:22AM +0800, 明覺 wrote: > >> I'm looking for a pure c/c++ programmed desktop manager, while the > >> xorg is depandent on perl, so i do not like it, is there any graphics > >> system which depands only on c/c++ to replace x window system? thanks > > > > I think that you'll find that you need to start writing things from > > scratch yourself. Since debian requires perl (e.g for debconf), you'll > > be better off with NetBSD. Then, write a program in C that looks at > > every non-binary file to see if what language its in. > > > > Can you tolerate shell scripts? If not, you'll have to write a C-based > > initscript. This may be easier on BSD since it doesn't use SysVinit. > > > > Take away the ideological furvor. It would be an excellent learning > > experience to rewrite, from scratch, everything in NetBSD that is not C. > > It would be very hard with Debian since every time you update, you'll > > have to do it all over again. > thanks, I got a better choice, the assembly language programmed OS - > MikeOS, I prefer assembly to C/C++.
So, to summarize some of your earlier posts: you want to recreate an entire OS in C/C++ or preferably assembly, including a replication of GUI functionality such as the one provided by X11-based desktop systems, and you'll probably want to do this alone because you won't accept help from somebody who says that languages that have built-in garbage collection, powerful string processing facilities, and ways to express high-level concepts more succinctly than C/C++ may be the better tool for some (major) parts of the job. Well, I happily expect the release of its first beta by 2050, by which time most of us will have spent our lives making *meaningful* contributions in our jobs (apart from other even more enjoyable things). Your statement that One Microsoft Way would be okay if it was free software just underlines that you don't understand what many posters before have been trying to tell you. There are different tools for different jobs. Some of my colleagues love Windows and everything else that comes from M$. I hate it an love Linux because the latter gives me more choice in the tools I use and allows me to be more productive. (Of course, there's the whole stability thing and the idealism of free software, too ;) .) Are my colleagues right? Am I right? The answer is: both. They chose Windows because it works for them, I chose linux because it works for me. The goal is productivity and using your time wisely. I know you've claimed before that all programming languages you learned so far do the same thing. So I feel I need to put some effort into preventing you from springing this one on me. At a low level, you are right. They all somehow translate into native machine code. But that's the only degree to which your statement is correct. Does C have garbage collection? Does it have regular expressions built into the language? Does it allow you to pass unnamed code blocks as function arguments such as Ruby? Does it support Common Lisp's notion of a closure? Does it support partial function application as in Haskell? The answer to all these questions is no. Is there something you can do in these languages that you can't do in C? No - exactly because C and many other languages are Turing-complete. However, many things are much easier to express, in a fraction of the lines of code, in higher-level languages than in C/C++. And that saves time. On that happy note, I won't waste more time on this and can only hope that you'll wake up before you waste your entire life. -N -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
