1. Since then, Smalltalk (SqueakNOS <http://squeaknos.blogspot.com/>), Forth (colorForth <http://www.colorforth.com/cf.htm>), and Lisp (Genera<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera_(operating_system)>) have all flirted with becoming operating systems, and Oberon<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(programming_language)> was designed<http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/PO.System.pdf> to be one <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system)> from the start. But none achieved economic success, for the simple reason that none of the projects involved attempted to provide value to people. They solved technical problems to validate that their concepts can work in the real world, but did not pursue the delivery of better solutions to real-world problems than would otherwise be possible.↩<http://davidad.github.io/blog/2014/03/12/the-operating-system-is-out-of-date/#fnref:1>
Pharo hopefully corrects the course.. >From : http://davidad.github.io/blog/2014/03/12/the-operating-system-is-out-of-date/ Most of all, let’s rethink the received wisdom that you should teach your computer to do things in a programming language and run the resulting program on an operating system. A righteous operating system should be a programming language. And for goodness' sake, let’s not use the entire network stack just to talk to another process on the same machine which is responsible for managing a database using the filesystem stack. At least let’s use shared memory (that’s what it’s *for*!). But if we believe in the future — if we believe in ourselves — let’s dare to ask why, anyway, does the operating system give you this “filesystem” thing that’s no good as a database and expect you to just accept that “stuff on computers goes in folders, lah”? Any decent software environment ought to have a fully featured database, built in, and no need for a “filesystem”.
