my friend said C, C++ and ASM were used to make windows xp. is he correct? i always it thought it was C# and Java....
my friend said C, C++ and ASM were used to make windows xp. is he correct? i always it thought it was C# and Java....
Are you serious? I don't mean to offend you... but Java... you can't be serious.
Java doesn't get close to the silicon like C or C++ can, that's why Java can be unreasonable for coding new operating systems. Your friend is right.
I'm more shocked at the notion C# being thought as one of the programming languages behind Windows XP.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Sprinkles of assembly, absurd masses of C and huge amounts of C++, with a few other languages here and there (some professor at the university told us that the network configuration uses a bit of Prolog somewhere).
Definitely no Java: it's a technology that not only is not under MS's control, but actually under the control of a competitor. It would be insane by Microsoft to do anything critical with it.
Remember this, too: the OS is based on Windows NT, and WinNT 3, the first version (I think), came out in the early 90s. WinNT 4.0, which took on the 9x look, was released around '96. Win2k, internally known as WinNT 5.0, was released in 2000. Development of C# began around that time, with the first stable version of Visual Studio being released in 2002, mere months before the final release of WinXP.
Everything in Win2k predates C#. Everything in WinNT 3 predates Java. And everything in NT 4 predates usable Java (let's face it - Java was turd before 1.2). And even the new parts in WinXP can't be C# - apart from the interfacing difficulties, you simply don't write something as critical as OS components in such a young technology.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Doesn't C# rely on dotnet anyways? If that's the case, then there's again no way XP could be coded even partially in C# since dotnet was barely a pipe dream at the time of XP's development. Furthermore, C# apps tend to be butt-ugly slow (even Microsoft's own apps!) and require monstrous amounts of CPU time and memory. XP itself is pretty decent on both.
Code:cout << "Language comparisons are dumb"; echo("Language comparisons are dumb"); PRINT "Language comparisons are dumb" alert ("Language comparisons are dumb")
.Net was developed around the same time as XP, so it was more than a pipe dream, but as I said, it was also far too young to be used in an OS.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Or, at that time, for anything else for that matter. I do agree with the notion it was probably a pipe dream back then though. I seem to remember the beta versions not being very popular among anyone other than Visual Basic and ASP web developers... or the typical suspects (PCWorld, PCMagazine and that website... old IT news website. Can't remember the name... and of course MSDN)
I must say wanting to stop native C++ access, killing an yet successful language like Visual Basic and VBA, is not something you do with a clear notion of what the future will hold.
EDIT: replace C++ for MFC...
Last edited by Mario F.; 01-09-2007 at 08:24 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
It was lisp
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
How would you go about programming an OS in a language that classically executes with a runtime enviornment? Which makes me wonder, what languages are preferred for writitng runtime libraries/enviornments?
"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"
-Mark Twain
You'd want something as tight as possible, without going too nuts about it. I'd guess that most libs have a strong ASM background, however, then you'd have to look a portability. Most, I'd guess, would be based in C.Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
LOL.Originally Posted by Bubba
And I thought it was done in a batch script
Code:echo off echo Starting Windows XP goto END ..... :END echo on
ERROR: Brain not found. Please insert a new brain!
“Do nothing which is of no use.” - Miyamoto Musashi.
Is an operating system even possible in Java? I mean a stand-alone operating system.