At 01:50 μμ 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote: >Phoebus, > >You are really sad :o)
Oh yeah! :-) >Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ? > Hmmm I still wonder, but fear not.... I'll be back to Europe soon (3/4 years... once I am done with college)... It's plainly too dangerous at this time to be a foreigner in the US... (Not to mention stupid things I hear nearly every day... but that's another story) >I can see a couple of (minor) flaws with your suggestion, but as an >exercise, it appeals to my sense of humor quite a bit. The flaws are : > >what happens if we use PortAsm/68K and there are bugs in the generated code I've seen PortAsm sources and it does really work with minimal bugs.... Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even yours ;-)))))) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?) hehe >- we'd need to be seriously good Intel assembly language programmers to fix >that - I suspect only Marcus would be able to sort it out. And other people that might become interested (especially because of QDOS' approaches in many OS issues) through a forum like SourceForge... More assembly programmers exist for x86 than all the other platforms combined I am afraid. >I'd have to learn Intel assembly myself, then do a series of articles in QL >Toady - and you'd all get very very bored very very quickly :o) So we are now :-) (Just kidding :-) hehe >Have you SEEN Intel assembly - it is awful ! As a matter of fact I have... Not worse than M68K for someone that STARTS learning now tho ;-) The goal (again) would be to attract new users... Existing ones are diminishing anyways :-) >All the system variables, Basic variables, interrupts, vectors, traps >whouldn't be there any more so we'd have to either code in C - oops, forgot, >we can't, no C compiler :o) True partially. A compiler could be (relatively) easily written. For example, C68 exists already for many platforms (among them MS-DOS) and I believe Keith and Dave are ALWAYS up for a challenge :-) >It just wouldn't be QDOSMSQ any more toto !! I don't agree with you... the essence of an operating system is its framework... This would be preserved... Furthermore, as we have discussed in the past in this list, a turn towards a more-Unix like approach for the OS kernel would benefit us greatly. (Higher level language for drivers etc...) >Nice mental exercise though. > It is aint'it? :-) Phoebus
