At 08:46 AM 3/12/2006 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
Orn,
On Sunday 12 March 2006 07:45, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
Þann Fimmtudaguren den 9 mars 2006 20:46 skrifaði Doug McGarrett:
Altho I'm not a programmer myself, I have worked with programmers in the communications industry, and I am surprised that any "operating system" at all would be built into a phone. Normally the code would be written to do just the things you need to do, and no more, probably in C++, and then compiled and burned into a dedicated chip. There would be enough memory to store phone numbers, and, I suppose, a couple of graphics, nowadays. But I guess I could be wrong.
Basically you might say, it's because companies don't want to hire programmers anymore. They're expensive, and to be able to use technologies like "bluetooth" and such, its basically easier to have M$ do it, and then franchize.
I don't think that analysis is valid. Firstly, the term "operating system" does not exclusively mean something like the Linux or Windows kernel (with or without the huge complement of extra-kernel software). Secondly, there are operating systems specifically designed for embedded and / or real-time device applications. These OSes are typically a little harder to program for, since less is provided, less of the hardware is hidden from the programmers and the abstractions and computational models are not as rich as those in desktop and mainframe operating systems.
Basically, layering and modularizatino (of which the OS / library / application distinction is just one the high-level instance) is not just a good idea in software architectures, it's the only way to have any hope of making the process of programming anywhere near productive enough to accommodate the huge demand for information tools. If each piece of embedded software were to be written directly to the hardware and from scratch, cell phones and PDAs and the like (or, more accurately, their software) would be an order of magnitude more expensive at least. Furthermore, it would be buggier and would evolve much more slowly.
Yes, programmers are expensive ('cause programming is hard) and the whole field is immature and lacking professional discipline. This will change, though probably not soon enough. Increasing computer power and advancements in the state of understanding of algorithmic, logical and information processes will move us towards less ad-hoc software and programming methodologies, but we have a long way to go!
Even if you don't like capitalism, economics is a real force and it combines with technology and fundamental principles of information technologies to lead to the use of "operating systems" on small portable devices.
Randall Schulz
Randall, you have clarified things for me, and I thank you. I hope programmers are not out of date. I know a few for whom I have great respect and admiration, and I am copying this message to one of them. I guess I was not thinking of embedded _dedicated_ systems, which I guess is what they are. (I don't know what the pro's call them. [C.S_R.?]) And I have to confess that I have been retired for three years, and I'm certain that things are quite different. I _do_ know how fast things change in the industry, having been bitten by it so many times! --doug -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006