Python OS

[Richard Blackwood]

Kay Schluehr wrote:

>> / 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. 

What does this mean?  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?

If possible but not a necessity.

> 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 ... ?

It may have a home in my intentions, but a splendid fantasy regardless.

>
> Regards       Kay
>
>
>
>
>
- Richard B.