Re: 64-bit extensions

[Mike Griebling <grieblm@trt.allied.com>]

> > There haven't been many new OSes.  The BeOS is the only recent one I
> > know of and it supports UTF for GUI text drawing while maintaining
> > Posix compatibility at a lower level with ASCII strings.  For characters
> > < 7FX, the two are equivalent so the conversion overhead is minimal.
> 
> So it does handle Unicode like a special UNICHAr type. In spite of being
> "new" is bases itself on posix (a standard without which there were no GNU
> utils etc, supporting posix maybe one reason that bebox still exists
> ;-)) and does not bases everything on Unicode.

Actually the Posix routines are built _on-top_ of the BeOS.  Not the other
way around.  BTW the BeBox isn't manufactured anymore but the BeOS is 
healthier than ever with new incarnations soon to appear on Pentiums.
 
> > > interpreter, but the whole jave engine, and I doubt we can totaly map
> > > everything to that (GUI, IO etc...), so this can't be really done...?
> 
> > Well, I think we could simulate the Java libs in OOC and then put native
> > calls to those libs in place when targetting Java output.
> 
> The whole class system is different. It maybe differnet to C++ but in my
> opinion the same problems will arise. And note, that a Java is not simply
> the byte code is more. Without access to the native classes you can do
> nothing since you don't have access to the underlying OS because of the
> design of java. So you have to build a oberon class for every java class.

Ok.  I'm beginning to see what everyone is getting at.  At least Java
doesn't have multiple inheritance.

> You can then put all oo2c classes in the garbage then and have to adapt
> every tool to the oberon mapping classes. I don't thing thats a workable
> solution. And if it would work I doubt anybody would spend that much work.
> Also it seems that the java classes are in permanent fluctuation and it
> might be that you have to redo your work in a half year. There isn't the
> workpower to build a fontend for juice which wouldn't be that complex as it
> would for Java. 

I wonder if you could just do a low-level mapping and keep the higher-level
stuff the same?  (i.e., do a Posix-style interface to the Java classes).

Michael G.