kayschluehr at gmx.de
Mon Nov 8 22:28:56 CET 2004
>/ 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 ... ?
More information about the Python-list