Python OS

[Kay Schluehr]

>/ Richard Blackwood wrote:
/
> What I do not quite understand is the overall assertion that low-level 
> aspects of OS design can not be simulated.  Interrupts were much 
> discussed, but I ask: can one not simulate interrupts?  It seems absurd 
> to me that this would be impossible.  

This is indeed trivial. It can be reduced to the statement that the Python language 
is Turing-complete. What remains unclear in this discussion is the perspective 
on "Python". Somewhere we have to leave the sim in order to run a concrete
system. The different high level representations of the concept "hardware interrupt" 
have to be projected onto one and only one that is feasible by the machine. 
If I interpret Your concerns correctly, You obtain a greater flexibility on the 
sim-level, which should influence again the "real" OS machine code? The model of this 
relationship is Psyco in the PyPy realm: being itself a Python program, that generates 
machine code on the fly that drives again the interpreter, that runs Psyco. 
But this tangled hierarchy in which OS and Python-Interpreter drive each other may
be my own fantasy, that has nothing to do with Your "prototyping" intention
in the closer sense ... ?

Regards 
       Kay