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....
Printable View
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.
whats wrong with java??
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.
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.
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.
.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.
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...
It was lisp
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
It was done in VB.
Is an operating system even possible in Java? I mean a stand-alone operating system.
Sure, on hardware that directly supports Java bytecode ;)
Seriously though, no. Java needs at least some minimal bit of base support. If you had low-level extensions for Java, you might be able to write a complete OS in that extended Java using a native compiler, but I wouldn't want to do it.