[1234hotmaster]

i wana see why people post a thread like this if they can't do a medium project themselves :epic: ( no offense tough )

[1234hotmaster]

i wana see why people post a thread like this if they can't do a medium project themselves :epic: ( no offense tough )

[blowdoof]

sure you can write your own os in vb, it will just take you a lot of time to write all the routines, interfaces etc.. not really a oneman show

[blowdoof]

sure you can write your own os in vb, it will just take you a lot of time to write all the routines, interfaces etc.. not really a oneman show

[Frooxius]

blowdoof: That's not true at all, do you have idea what OS development involves and how it works?

Visual Basic (and especially Visual Basic.NET) is not a system development language, because they're both dependent on system libraries and you can hardly write an OS from scratch, that would be dependent on libraries from another OS...

How would you even create kernel and other low level stuff? These are often done in assembly, not even C/C++, though C/C++ can be used for development of other code too, because it's closer to the machine code than most other high level languages and when you're creating OS, then you have to care a lot what's going on on the lowest level, because you often need to set up the processor appropriately, switch its state, configure interrupt vectors (put appropriate code there at specific address) and much more: stuff that Visual Basic can't do and especially not Visual Basic.NET, because that doesn't even compile to native code, but rather creates assembly that will be JIT compiled - again dependency of functionality of another OS.

So no, you can't write your own OS in Visual Basic from scratch (and if you read what I wrote correctly, I said Visual Basic.NET which is the newer version). Some things are not matter of how much time you have, but rather the function of given language. Try reading my article, it might clear a few things about this: http://www.hackcommunity.com/Thread-How-...or-dummies

[blowdoof]

It has been done before in C#, also a CLR language.. so yes, it is possible in vb.net
Who says you can't do the vb.net compiling into pure assembly? Have a look at Cosmos for example, written in C#

[Frooxius]

blowdoof: Try to read properly what I write (again). Cosmos does tons of stuff for you, it's rather a building kit, whereas I'm talking about writing entirely your own OS from scratch (I said it exactly so you can't bring up Cosmos...), where you can't use just VB, you'll always be dependent on other languages for the most low level things.

I never said that you can't compile VB.NET into assembly, my point was elsewhere. In fact, CLR languages is JIT compiled from CIL to the native code for the given architecture... So you'll always be dependent on other components that will circumvent the parts that the language can't do by itself, such as the IL2ASM in case of Cosmos. You'll always have to go away from the standard and alter it, so you can handle the low level stuff. And Cosmos actually does use assembly programming language under the surface, though it's not visible at first (you don't even have to care, because someone else did that for you, but like I said, I'm talking about writing OS entirely on your own, so no, you can't write it in VB/VB.NET/C# without touching assembly at least a little bit (directly or indirectly). Cosmos is also rather an demonstration, than usable solution, for normal OS development, it's very limited (you're bound by what's already provided for you), so the assembler and C/C++ is the way to go.

Not to mention, everything you're saying is very inconsistent. First you say that it takes tons of time to write that OS and then you show Cosmos kit, that allows you to do that in a relatively short time (though you don't really have much freedom). Also you talk about VB, which had it's own runtime and then you suddenly switch to VB.NET, which is quite different from VB, because it uses CLR which can the Cosmos kit use. Not to mention you don't read properly what I write and react to something I haven't actually exactly said.

Also lastly, saying that it's possible because both C# and VB.NET are CLR compliant is logical fallacy. What is needed to compare is the features of languages themselves, because CLR is a super-set various languages can use, but they don't have to implement whole super-set, but just a subset of it and they'll still be CLR compliant.

Imagine the situation: I can create a very simple language, for some simple tasks, that will be CLR compliant, however I'll make the language so it doesn't provide features that would be needed for the OS creation no matter that tools you use. However, according to your statement, because it's CLR compliant, it must be possible to make an OS in it, however the language is designed so OS can't be made in it and it's still CLR compliant - therefore a paradox arises because your statement is logically wrong. It might be possible to use VB.NET/C# for coding portions of the OS, however you still need to touch assembly in order to provide the basis, since the languages do not allow what you need themselves as I already mentioned before.

[blowdoof]

Ok Frooxius, i did read your posts and let me clear some things:
- you state the original request for this post is not an OS, but an alternative shell. That's your definition. To me, any application that can host other applications and can serve as an interaction between the hardware and the application and is able to manage that hardware, providing common services, can be called an OS. An OS may be dependant to other things, as long as it provides the initial interaction to the programs written for that os.
- i never said you have to use Cosmos, i just gave it as an example. If you read it, you'll have noticed that Cosmos was written in C# and i only pointed out a similar project could be written in VB.NET. And yes, if you want to write your own Cosmos first, you'll have to write tons of code.
- It's not because you write in vb.net you have to use a vb.net compiler. The compiler is a tool. Let's say it this way: when i'm speaking to someone trough a translator: it's not because my translator is speaking and understanding Chinese that i have to speak and understand it... I said in in English but still my client understands me.

Concerning the CLR logical failure. I never said that because VB.net is CLR language it can be used as an OS. I said, and i'll quote: It has been done before in C#, also a CLR language.. so yes, it is possible in vb.net. Comprehensive reading: it has been done in C# which is also a CLR language. Can't see any mistakes here? So i'm assuming since it is possible in C#, it should be possible in vb.net as well. Though C# and VB.NET are syntactically very different, that is where the differences mostly end. Microsoft developed both of these languages to be part of the same .NET Framework development platform

Never the less, i mostly agree with you that vb.net wasn't build to be a system language. If you're stuck on an island with just hardware and no software, you'll probably won't end up writing your os in vb.net.
I apoligize for mixing up vb and vb.net. Meant vb.net all the way.

Oh yea.. didn't reply to you Frooxius but to Darkmaster, so please don't feel attacked by my response. Besides, the response was meant as an ironic response since i agree with him that a lot of people here are requesting stuff that goes way beyond there capabilities. I know you are well aware of computer architecture, just wanted an open discussion.

Grtz

[1234hotmaster]

nice posts both of you i learned ALOT!

sure i understand =]

WAIT A SEC I REMEMBERED YOUR NAME!!! YOUR THAT VB PRO GUY XD
an honor :bow:

can you show me a example how to keylog a certain window?

[blowdoof]

do you want to catch if an application starts/is running, or particular if that application becomes the active window?
Anyway, once catched you can use a globalhook as explained here