Hello Jaap,
Friday, June 16, 2006, 7:27:32 PM, you wrote:
> I like Haskell a lot, but I chose to use OCaml for this work because
> the practicalities of porting the compiler were a little easier to
> manage. GHC would be rather harsh on the fairly primitive MINIX memory
> management system, altho
> It is irreleveant what language these services are written in, so
> long as they obey the protocol.
This is most likely true. I have written an interface using the OCaml
FFI to be able to call the MINIX message passing functions from within
an OCaml program. It's doesn't work completely just yet
Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 2, 2006, at 5:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> It is quite instructive to compare a device driver in Haskell
>> with the original C driver -- it terms of length, speed, time to
>> write, number of bugs, etc.
>
> I think this is an awesome idea.
Joel Reymont wrote:
>
> I think this is an awesome idea. I believe the folks at Galois have
> customized the Haskell runtime for embedded devices but... I wonder
> if us mere mortals will spend more time fighting laziness (and thus
> high memory usage) than focusing on driver functionality.
On Jun 2, 2006, at 5:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is quite instructive to compare a device driver in Haskell
with the original C driver -- it terms of length, speed, time to
write, number of bugs, etc.
I think this is an awesome idea. I believe the folks at Galois have
customized the
I'm attending a USENIX conference and just had a nice talk
with Andrew Tanenbaum. As some may know, he's working on the new
version of Minix, Minix3. It is actually working, now with the X
windows interface:
http://www.minix3.org
Andrew Tanenbaum said that it is important for a l
