richardblackwood at cloudthunder.com
Tue Nov 9 13:52:05 CET 2004
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
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"
> in the closer sense ... ?
It may have a home in my intentions, but a splendid fantasy regardless.
> Regards Kay
- Richard B.
More information about the Python-list