<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrew Coppin</b> <<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Creighton Hogg wrote:<br>><br>><br>> On 6/18/07, *Andrew Coppin* <<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com
</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> That reminds me... Somebody should write an *OS* in Haskell! :-D<br>><br>><br>> Well, there hasn't been a lot of work done on the subject but you<br>> probably should look at
<br>> <a href="http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/">http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/</a><br>> Now if you're seriously asking how one would do it, the basic approach<br>> taken in the paper was to create a monad H that was a controlled
<br>> subset of IO & that did all the fundamental interactions with the the<br>> hardware. The operations of H, as with IO, have to be primitives in<br>> the runtime that you're using and probably written in C or assembly.
<br><br>I read about House once. It seemed too far-out to be true.<br><br>OTOH, it's only a proof-of-concept system. I doubt it will ever become a<br>real, usable system, sadly.</blockquote><div><br>Well if no one works on it, that's kind of a given. :-P
<br>But more seriously, what seems so far out about it? I'm curious. <br>Also, if this thread of operating systems & functional programming isn't interesting to other people then we should probably just take it to e-mail & not the list.
<br></div><br></div><br>