@agami

Quote:

I said the new OS OO architecture will be more like Amiga OS than macOS. Meaning both of these employ an OO architecture but in in different ways,

Again you are throwing around words and terms while I am getting convinced you don't even understand what the terms mean, they just sound very advanced and cool.

Let me ask you a serious question about Amiga OS and ObjectOrientation: Exactly what part of Amiga OS is Object Oriented? I want a specific part and I want a technical description and justification why it is OO.

I hacked a lot of Amiga back in the day and I can not really remember any ObjectOrientation concepts from the Amiga OS. Except BOOPSI. I can give you that, but BOOPSI is came very late in the lifecycle when Amiga was basically dead already and it is not really part of the OS even.
It is a primitive application library to create UI widgets using very crude OO concepts.
(Calling BOOPSI part of the OS would be like calling LIBC part of the OS on unix, it is not, LIBC is merely a layer of abstractions to make it more convenient to interact with the OS so you will not have to deal with the raw systemcalls directly, because that is not fun.)


So, exactly what in Amiga OS is ObjectOriented. Why is it ObjectOriented and how is it Object Oriented.
I want a technical answer like how an engineer would answer. I dont want another post of a stream of just content less sentenses with not meaning but lots of buzzwords.

I don't what the kind of answer where I have to ask "but what does that actually mean?" and the answer is "it means nothing, or anything, it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and tomorrow it can mean something else".

@agami

Quote:

And yes, Haiku progress and status are very impressive. I'm looking forward to the day when I can install it on bare-bones HW like AROS.

What do you mean by you can't wait to install it on real hardware??
That's been available for quite some time already.

"What platform(s) is Haiku targeted to run on?

The main target for Haiku R1 is the x86 (Intel, AMD, and compatible) platform. There are ports to other platforms underway, such as RISC-V, PowerPC, Sparc, and ARM. However, it is not clear whether these will be supported or not. What platforms we support in the future will heavily depend on the availability of resources to support their development."

AND

"Can I use Haiku as my primary Operating System?

Yes! Although the OS is still considered “beta”, it is reasonably stable and can be used to perform most daily tasks such as browsing the web writing and reading e-mails, or listening to music and watching videos. We strongly recommend that you make backups of your personal files regularly.
Can Haiku connect to the Internet?

Yes! We reuse network drivers from FreeBSD, so most network adapters will work on Haiku out of the box. Haiku includes an e-mail client and a web browser, and you can install other network-enabled applications.
What is the status of wireless internet connections?

Wireless drivers are supported by our FreeBSD compatibility layer as well, and they should also work fine. You can connect to WEP, WPA, WPA2, and open networks easily using the GUI."

Have a look at the FAQ? https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#can-i-use-haiku-as-my-primary-operating-system

Last edited by SHADES on 30-Sep-2022 at 07:49 AM.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

@V8
Not that it matters, as whether or not I meet your specific requirement of sufficient description of what OO architecture is, it will not change your view of what I am looking to bring to market, as I continue to repeat that this is not a suitable forum to dive into that material.

Also, I have never claimed that I will be engineering the software components of what I plan, nor that I am at present an engineer capable of writing a new OS/OE.

I am by profession an architect, and recently have also had the unique (mis)fortune of operating several small technology companies.

But to answer your question: Datatypes
And I will not be pasting here the technical description of Datatypes functions as part of Amiga OS.

Now feel free to go on about how Datatypes as implemented in Amiga OS are not a constituent part of an OO Architecture, by perhaps focusing only on C coding conventions.

Last edited by agami on 30-Sep-2022 at 08:01 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@SHADES

Quote:

What do you mean by you can't wait to install it on real hardware?? That's been available for quite some time already.

To be honest, I haven't checked in a while.

Last time I checked, it could only install and run in a VM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

Quote:

But to answer your question: Datatypes

I don't think that is an example of OO. It is really just a set of converters that are tried one at a time until you find one that works. There is no real vtable or methods that follow the "object".
While datatypes is a cute concept, it is conceptually not much different from :

if ((bitmap = load_GIF(file)) != NULL) {
return bitmap;
} else if ((bitmap = load_TIFF(file)) != NULL) {
return bitmap;
...
At the end of the day you just convert to a common format and then just operate on it. Where it the vtable for the bitmap for example? there is none because it is a bitmap. Why do you need a vtable it it will always be a bitmap?


This is not object orientation and it does not result in an object that has methods associated with it.

On the other hand, both in BSD kernel for OSX and for Linux kernel, that is written in C, I can give you examples of actual object orientation. Like how inodes are managed, or how block devices are managed.
Both are things that end up as objects with an associated methods table, or vtable in C++ speak, that follow the object around with a standardized API so that a kernel can operate on these objects without having to care what kind of object it is. As in NFS file, or ext3 file, or just a memory region you want to operate on as if it was a file.
In the vfs layer, it can also handle when certain methods, or we can call them traits, are missing and often vfs can then provide a "generic method". Maybe not an optimal method for the object in question, but a a method that will work.
You can see that as either an example of, or both an example of method overloading or specifying optional traits. Common concepts in OO.

For block devices you also have methods tables associated with the block device object. Every type of block device has a different table unique to its type. But here you can also STACK virtual block device types ontop of other block devices, for example you can stack an "encrypt each LBA" virtual block device ontop of a SCSI disc block device.
I don;t know, maybe this is a good example of "inheritance", you start with an object that represents a physical scsi disk and its associated methods, then you "inherit" this object into a virtual encrypted disk object with a different set of methods that replace the ones from the scsi disk.


Both these examples are things that are actual object orientation frameworks and they exist in both OSX and Linux kernel. It has objects with associated methods, it has mechanisms to provide traits for objects, or have the system automatically provide generic replacements for the traits. You have inheritance.

This is object orientation. You example of datatypes is not an example of object orientation. You might think it is because you just don't know what object orientation actually is, and it is a cool buzzword.
Again, I am convinced that you just use buzzwords to sound important but you actually do not understand what the terms and concepts you mention actually mean.

Last edited by V8 on 30-Sep-2022 at 08:56 AM.

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @Karlos Quote: However to suggest that MacOS doesn't, I said the new OS OO architecture will be more like Amiga OS than macOS. Meaning both of these employ an OO architecture but in in different ways, and the new OE will be more like one that the other. It does not in in way imply that macOS isn't or doesn't employ an OO architecture.

Different how? Both use OO techniques for user interface components*. OSX uses them for a bunch more than that.

*This technically ncludes datatypes which are part of the BOOPSI framework.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@V8

Quote:

This is object orientation. You example of datatypes is not an example of object orientation. You might think it is because you just don't know what object orientation actually is, and it is a cool buzzword. Again, I am convinced that you just use buzzwords to sound important but you actually do not understand what the terms and concepts you mention actually mean.

I am just contributing to the conversation. I am not trying to "sound important".
While I haven't been a software engineer for many decades now, I can follow the example you've elaborated. As an architect, I recognize the same patterns further up in the OS and I have always just referred to it under the umbrella term of OO Architecture.

I'm not looking to throw around "buzzwords". If this label does not apply outside the context of the example you (and @Karlos) have provided, then you bet that I will stop using that term, and look for a better way to describe it.

I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm simply talking about a business case and plan I have worked on for a long time now, and I will look to raise funds from investors to bring to market a 3rd commercial consumer computing platform. And if I get to do it, then I'd look to bring in some of the things I was fond of from my Amiga days. I would make it the kind of computing platform that I would enjoy using, and I feel many here would too. That's all. No buzzwords.

@Karlos
In light of my being corrected on the use of the terminology, perhaps they are not intrinsically different. So lets just leave it at: The new OS will employ an OO architecture.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@BigD

>Can you 'buy' Linux software?

a) obviously (if you don't even know that better don't bother arguing about it)
b) why would it matter? Plenty companies running that don't sell a product but rely on offering services .... or where the costumer is the product.

>Since when was the Amiga EVER a not-for-profit/charity!
Does not matter, can you run a (proper) business out of selling products related to it?
All we had in the past 25 years were hobbiest/retro product, nothing that an average consumer would spend money on.

@matthey
>ChromeOS is Linux based.

So what? It is a different user experience compared to normal Linux and works quite different.

@agami
>Neither of these qualify as a commercial consumer computing platform.

Not that you would have authority or credibility on that matter.



All in all just the usual delusional nonsense that has made sure Amiga couldn't be revived at anytime in the past 20+ years.


@V8
> I can give you that, but BOOPSI is came very late in the lifecycle when
>Amiga was basically dead already and it is not really part of the OS even.

BOOPSI came with 2.0 aka just when AmigaOS was entering it's best days and it as much part of the OS as any other non essential component in any other OS (like every GUI toolkit).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@agami

I take it what you are alluding to is a system made of components with well defined roles and responsibilities that can be built upon to add new functionality, enhance existing features and so on. If that's true, I think perhaps "modular" better describes what you mean. Object Orientation is a paradigm supported by various languages that helps achieve modularity, but it doesn't mean modular systems have to be implemented in them.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

Kronos Quote:

So what? It is a different user experience compared to normal Linux and works quite different.

The divisions of Linux are why Linux will never become the 3rd computing platform but a more standard OS built on Linux could. The difficult part is differentiating and proliferating a "standard" Linux flavor and distro. Apple also chooses a standard CPU architecture but likes to change a lot. The 68k Amiga offers a more standard environment which includes a CPU architecture and base custom chips for more standardization although some people reject this amount of standardization despite the benefits. The x86(-64) architectures offer a kind of hardware standardization beyond the CPU ISA as well.

Kronos Quote:

BOOPSI came with 2.0 aka just when AmigaOS was entering it's best days and it as much part of the OS as any other non essential component in any other OS (like every GUI toolkit).

Right. AmigaOS development was still improving too. AmigaOS 3.1 was the most stable and best AmigaOS version released by CBM. Not many people would want to go back to an earlier AmigaOS unless it is to play games.

Karlos Quote:

I take it what you are alluding to is a system made of components with well defined roles and responsibilities that can be built upon to add new functionality, enhance existing features and so on. If that's true, I think perhaps "modular" better describes what you mean. Object Orientation is a paradigm supported by various languages that helps achieve modularity, but it doesn't mean modular systems have to be implemented in them.

BOOPSI is a general purpose OOP system (the superclass is a general purpose object). It is not limited to GUI elements even though most of the provided classes are used for them and communication between them. Datatypes is built on top of BOOPSI. The OOP modularity fits with the Amiga with existing modular data like GUI elements, images, structures, libraries, etc. encapsulated into objects. No object oriented language is required and I would rather have it this way as it allows us to use C which is more efficient than OOP languages (BOOPSI classes are Amiga shared libraries where C++ statically links object support code). Yes, the Amiga was built on modularity without OOP which is usually more efficient and fine when simple. Does the AmigaOS 4 IExec->function OOP change really help anything or is it just an inefficient hassle? BOOPSI allows to wrap objects around anything if OOP is wanted but it has not been used everywhere just to say it is OOP. The AmigaOS has better modularity and code sharing features than most other OSs with or without OOP.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: Kronos Quote: So what? It is a different user experience compared to normal Linux and works quite different. The divisions of Linux are why Linux will never become the 3rd computing platform but a more standard OS built on Linux could.

And guess what, both ChromeOS and Android do just that to the point where 99.9% of users have no idea they are running Linux (and wouldn't care anyways).

But really you should stop pissing on Linux. Sure it is messy but so was any AmigaOS install ever (for people who wanted to get thinks done). Just FYI Steam does sell a system based on Linux (again many costumers barely notice) and the they are restricted by supply, so yeah "3rd computing platform" my......

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: Last time I checked, it could only install and run in a VM.

First time I installed Haiku, it was on real hardware (Asus Eee Box) and the year was 2009 or so, so… I very much doubt your claim.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: BOOPSI is a general purpose OOP system (the superclass is a general purpose object). It is not limited to GUI elements even though most of the provided classes are used for them and communication between them. Datatypes is built on top of BOOPSI. The OOP modularity fits with the Amiga with existing modular data like GUI elements, images, structures, libraries, etc. encapsulated into objects. No object oriented language is required and I would rather have it this way as it allows us to use C which is more efficient than OOP languages (BOOPSI classes are Amiga shared libraries where C++ statically links object support code). Yes, the Amiga was built on modularity without OOP which is usually more efficient and fine when simple. Does the AmigaOS 4 IExec->function OOP change really help anything or is it just an inefficient hassle? BOOPSI allows to wrap objects around anything if OOP is wanted but it has not been used everywhere just to say it is OOP. The AmigaOS has better modularity and code sharing features than most other OSs with or without OOP.

- BOOPSI is the bare minimum to be called OOP (by 1990 standards)
- BOOPSI requires tons of boilerplate code to make C do what C++ could do in 3 lines
- BOOPSI leads to many potential bugs that are hard to diagnose
- modern OSes and languages did evolve quite a bit in the past 30 years so most of your criticism does not apply anymore. Just look at what a modern API and language can do in SwiftUI (and plenty others I never tried).

Also OS4 uses a C++ OOP syntax to do something that is not OOP at all (noone sane has ever claimed otherwise).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

Kronos Quote:

And guess what, both ChromeOS and Android do just that to the point where 99.9% of users have no idea they are running Linux (and wouldn't care anyways). But really you should stop pissing on Linux. Sure it is messy but so was any AmigaOS install ever (for people who wanted to get thinks done). Just FYI Steam does sell a system based on Linux (again many costumers barely notice) and the they are restricted by supply, so yeah "3rd computing platform" my......

Linux has big advantages and big disadvantages. It's popularity is mostly due to being open source and free to use. Most OS users don't prefer it although power users and developers learn to appreciate it and users don't mind it if everything is pre-configured in one of these "specialized" Linux distros, especially if it saves them $. Linux is very powerful and general purpose but these "specialized" distros are more limited and specialized for specific uses.

ChromeOS - specialized for web browsing and tied to the cloud
Android - specialized for a mobile GUI and services
SteamOS - specialize to provide a gaming console like GUI and services

vs

AmigaOS - general purpose OS
macOS - general purpose OS
Windows - general purpose OS

It could be argued that the bottom list is too tied to a desktop GUI and needs. The AmigaOS provided a simple but nice gaming console GUI for the CD32. Windows can switch to a mobile GUI (tried to make it the default but desktop users hated it). Apple merged macOS and iOS app standards so now the same binary can be used for desktop and mobile environments.

https://appetiser.com.au/blog/apple-is-planning-on-merging-ios-and-macos-apps-by-2021/

These general purpose OSs and GUIs are becoming more versatile, "skinnable" and general purpose while the first group is more specialized and usually not trying to become more general purpose. You don't see a difference?

Kronos Quote:

- BOOPSI is the bare minimum to be called OOP (by 1990 standards)

Yea, to minimalist and more efficient OOP implementations instead of bloated ones. BOOPSI is minimalist but extendable. Look in the boot partition gadgets, images and datatypes directories to see how much it has been extended, especially if you have newer versions of AmigaOS. Look in the MUI directory to see more BOOPSI extensions. The base classes have been updated to be much nicer on newer AmigaOS versions as well.

Kronos Quote:

- BOOPSI requires tons of boilerplate code to make C do what C++ could do in 3 lines

Three lines and 30kiB of code for the C++ static link library that is not shareable. All those gadgets, images, datatypes and MUI objects mentioned above are normal shared Amiga libraries.

Kronos Quote:

- BOOPSI leads to many potential bugs that are hard to diagnose

OOP indirection makes programs more difficult to debug. It also degrades performance with indirect branches which CPUs can't predict well. CPUs with indirect branch predict often only predict the last branch destination among a whole list of destinations. BOOPSI tries to minimalise the number of indirect branches (some OOP purists would complain) and it has amazing code sharing which improves performance, reduces the computer footprint and exemplifies OOP principles.

Kronos Quote:

- modern OSes and languages did evolve quite a bit in the past 30 years so most of your criticism does not apply anymore. Just look at what a modern API and language can do in SwiftUI (and plenty others I never tried). Also OS4 uses a C++ OOP syntax to do something that is not OOP at all (noone sane has ever claimed otherwise).

Modern programming languages, especially OOP languages, often cause major code bloat. If they work to speed up your programming then great but there is usually a code bloat and performance cost. C is still one of the most efficient languages although it does not provide everything ready made in a link library of bloat (but AmigaOS provides BOOPSI shared libraries). Traditional AmigaOS programming is not outdated technology but old school goodness that needs a little work here and there. IMO, the major improvement of languages is more about multi-threading features and enhancements where the Amiga doesn't support SMP.

@all

Image if all this bla, bla, bla, was actual program code, wow we have a some really great applications and games by now.

433 comments, on Alliance and you can’t even agree on the basics.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: 433 comments, on Alliance and you can’t even agree on the basics.

Yes, and it's awesome! Not agreeing on the basics has been a tradition among Amiga fans since the 90's, which makes this thread a valuable part of the retro experience.

But seriously, so long as people aren't shouting or trading insults it's all good entertainment.

Quote:

Image if all this bla, bla, bla, was actual program code, wow we have a some really great applications and games by now.

I spend a lot more time coding on the Amiga than in this forum, and I bet that applies to others who would be (and are) producing games and apps too. So that's another thing we can't agree on!

@matthey

What BOOPSI had was the ability to dynamically extend classes at runtime. It's a powerful idea but it wasn't leveraged except in the implementation details of extending classes statically.

Efficiency wise, however, BOOPSI was not great. Method dispatch takes ages in computing terms, much slower than something like a C++ virtual function call. It doesn't matter that much for UI components of course because said methods are generally only called as part of event processing.

@Kronos

If you are referring to OS4 interface calls, you can bend them into behaving like the prototype pattern. What you have to do is to clone the interface instance and modify the clone to have some different function pointers and/or state for whatever behaviour you are modifying. This is a bit like SetFunction() on a library except that it modifies the cloned instance, which in turn can become a prototype instance for some other more derived version, infinitum. All instances can be resident and in use by whatever process created them. Method calls are fast because they are basically just a function pointer in the structure. The syntactical sugar OS4 uses is a custom GCC attribute to make sure the instance is passed as the first parameter, a bit like "this" in C++.

While this works it isn't what they are intended for.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Kronos

Quote:

It is a different user experience compared to normal Linux and works quite different.

What is "normal Linux"? I have a chromebook with chromeOS here, and it behaves just like anything else Linux I have, essentially the exact same thing - Linux with some crap ontop that is supposed to appeal to someone’s grandma. Same same…

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@all

Object-oriented programming does not require inheritance. That's the most common way people see it implemented, but that's not the point.

Object-oriented programming, unlike the largely "procedural" paradigms which preceded it, stresses organization of program structure around the data rather than the algorithms. A language can be object-oriented without offering classes and inheritance.

For instance, Wikipedia lists Oberon* and Rust as object-oriented languages even though they do not offer classes, and Rust does not even offer inheritance.

In particular, an object-oriented language does not have to have virtual function tables.

If that was already understood, then never mind me.

Last edited by an_overeducated_idiot on 01-Oct-2022 at 01:32 AM.
Last edited by an_overeducated_idiot on 01-Oct-2022 at 01:28 AM.
Last edited by an_overeducated_idiot on 01-Oct-2022 at 01:28 AM.

@Kronos

Quote:

Not that you would have authority or credibility on that matter.

I do not. Nor do I claim to have authority. (The credibility part is debatable).

I don't define these things this way. The business world does.
Google may very well have aspirations for Chromebooks and Chrome OS to become a commercial consumer computing platform, and Apple can market the iPad as the quintessential post-PC computing platform all it want's.

The commercial reality is that the broader computing industry does not see these as commercial consumer computing platforms.
Even in the Post-PC context they don't count, where iOS iPhones and Android smartphones rule supreme.

Last edited by agami on 01-Oct-2022 at 04:03 AM.
Last edited by agami on 01-Oct-2022 at 04:01 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k