Re: What would be a truly relational operating system ?

From: paul c <>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:56:28 GMT
Message-ID: <0dgLm.51825$Db2.7057_at_edtnps83>

Cimode wrote:
> On 11 nov, 05:39, paul c <> wrote: ...
>> There have been a few embedded special-purpose OS's that had minimal
>> (ie., only the essential) logical and coherent programmer interfaces.
>> If I had to give the main design goal of an OS, that is it. But there
>> is a big difference between an interface to hardware and an interface to
>> a logical machine. Probably none of today's mainsteam OS's could adapt.
>> Unix originally had what Fred Brooks called 'conceptual integrity' or
>> suchlike with its file-stream metaphor but like the others you mention,
>> it certainly doesn't have any comprehensive foundation theory akin to
>> relational algebra and the emphasis remains physical, with lots of
>> physical device library functions, each expressed in terms of the
>> device's characteristics or the underlying machine language. In theory,
>> such a base, if it existed, would offer similar advantages to a
>> relational dbms, tight definition, logical rules for manipulation and
>> therefore prediction and correctness proof.

> Could you give me some pointers.  As far as I know, logical storage
> mechanisms were never designed with the purpose of reducing runtime
> declarative representation of relations. IN order words ra never made
> it into storage physical data retrieval.
> ...

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. There was a snow-flurry of them and various special OS extensions in the 1980's. Didn't have much to do with them and can't remember the names, although I recall one of the special-purpose languages for one of them was Forth, something from Xerox Parc too. This was before it was clear that the Intel instruction sets would dominate, even before MicroSoft started selling mice (about the same time as Prolog was being criticized for not being able to update a database). Received on Fri Nov 13 2009 - 17:56:28 CET

Original text of this message