C
Christopher Reed
Singularity is written mostly with C#. I believe that makes it written in
..NET.
..NET.
P
Patrice
According to "An Overview of the Singularity Project" at
http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity, it is actually written using
Sing# (a language derived from a language that is derived from C#).
A recent MSDN Magazine articles says it is written using C# but it looks
like a simplification...
http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity, it is actually written using
Sing# (a language derived from a language that is derived from C#).
A recent MSDN Magazine articles says it is written using C# but it looks
like a simplification...
C
Christopher Reed
But it's still .NET, which was my counterpoint....
R
Randolpho
CMM opined:
Of course you're not expected to throw away your legacy code!!!! Why do
you think Microsoft goes to so much trouble to ensure that .NET can
interoperate with legacy code? So you *don't* have to throw away your
old stuff! .NET is for new applications, modifications, and upgrades.
Win32 *still* exists, and will continue to do so in some form or other
for many years. Ditto MFC. Unfortunately....
Patrice opined:
Yes, it's written in Sing#, and did you notice what Sing# added to C#?
Syntactic sugar to embed asynchronous message passing into the
language. That's pretty much it -- other than the contract stuff, Sing#
looks like C#. It's true that Singularity probably doesn't use much of
the API associated with the .NET framework, since it's all kernel code,
but it *does* compile to the same MSIL to which every other .NET
language compiles. It uses properties, attributes, delegates... it is
100% .NET.
Well, ok, it's 99.9% .NET, since there's some unsafe C++ and ASM code
in there, but you get the point, I hope.
Of course you're not expected to throw away your legacy code!!!! Why do
you think Microsoft goes to so much trouble to ensure that .NET can
interoperate with legacy code? So you *don't* have to throw away your
old stuff! .NET is for new applications, modifications, and upgrades.
Win32 *still* exists, and will continue to do so in some form or other
for many years. Ditto MFC. Unfortunately....
Patrice opined:
Yes, it's written in Sing#, and did you notice what Sing# added to C#?
Syntactic sugar to embed asynchronous message passing into the
language. That's pretty much it -- other than the contract stuff, Sing#
looks like C#. It's true that Singularity probably doesn't use much of
the API associated with the .NET framework, since it's all kernel code,
but it *does* compile to the same MSIL to which every other .NET
language compiles. It uses properties, attributes, delegates... it is
100% .NET.
Well, ok, it's 99.9% .NET, since there's some unsafe C++ and ASM code
in there, but you get the point, I hope.
P
Patrice
I don't kown what exactly it adds (the paper mentions "low level constructs"
but my guess would be it's a bit more than just syntactic suggar but likely
"real" additional low level features aimed at writing something like an
OS)..
That said I prettry agreee that it doesn't really matter. Whatever the
distance between the current framework and what they used is, the whole
project is likely an interesting clue anyway...
but my guess would be it's a bit more than just syntactic suggar but likely
"real" additional low level features aimed at writing something like an
OS)..
That said I prettry agreee that it doesn't really matter. Whatever the
distance between the current framework and what they used is, the whole
project is likely an interesting clue anyway...
R
Randolpho
I don't kown what exactly it adds (the paper mentions "low level constructs"
Whoops, you're right. Sing# adds also adds "low-level constructs
necessary for system code", whatever that means. It can't mean
pointers, since that's available in C#. Perhaps it's embedded ASM or
ILASM.
They don't show any Sing# code other than the syntactic sugar for
messaging I mentioned, which is probably why I forgot about it.
Whoops, you're right. Sing# adds also adds "low-level constructs
necessary for system code", whatever that means. It can't mean
pointers, since that's available in C#. Perhaps it's embedded ASM or
ILASM.
They don't show any Sing# code other than the syntactic sugar for
messaging I mentioned, which is probably why I forgot about it.