On the one hand, the art of unix programming claims that object-orientation only succeeds at solving certain problems by creating something sufficiently complex that the human mind can barely cope. Then I read that oberon solves problems that c can't solve, while claiming to be better than c++. Then I read, in principia, that oberon is only simplified by getting rid of all the really interesting and valuable functionality that is in plan9.
So the questions: is that functionality really necessary, or is oberon really all we need? and.. what would a plan9 system written in object-oriented oberon look like? in oberon+ with concurrency/parallelism? would this result in a better system than the current plan9? And what about safer languages like ada? (rust being based on c++, and therefore not being a real contender..)
Comments
I should make this clearer.
On the one hand, the art of unix programming claims that object-orientation only succeeds at solving certain problems by creating something sufficiently complex that the human mind can barely cope. Then I read that oberon solves problems that c can't solve, while claiming to be better than c++. Then I read, in principia, that oberon is only simplified by getting rid of all the really interesting and valuable functionality that is in plan9.
So the questions: is that functionality really necessary, or is oberon really all we need? and.. what would a plan9 system written in object-oriented oberon look like? in oberon+ with concurrency/parallelism? would this result in a better system than the current plan9? And what about safer languages like ada? (rust being based on c++, and therefore not being a real contender..)
I am in discussion now with a colleague on the subject of c++/rust, so there will be greater clarity on that soon.