Lets translate all of the latest Slackware 64 bits stable version source code to Assembler. I'll join the project on July 1st...
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
OK, OK.. I'l go first, since none seems to want to do it: There is no project. This is a troll.
exhibit A: a serious project this size would have some kind of website for coordination of this HUGE effort
exhibit B: any knowledgeable developer/programmer with enough skill to do it would understand that the effort would seriously outweigh any potential benefits
exhibit C: any serious project of this nature would not start with a distro (slackware or any other) and just go after the kernel first
exhibit D: NO... just no...
He wants to translate the entire Slackware source code from whatever language into assembly language.
The hard stuff is to transform all the code written in interpreted languages to assembly language.
But it's easy for c code and other compiled languages, as that's what the compiler does. If you watch your tmp directory while compiling stuff you can see .s files appearing and disappearing. They contain the compiled code in assembly language. If you add '-S' to the gcc command, it stops after compilation, does not assemble, leaving the .s assembly code for you to study.
The hard stuff is to transform all the code written in interpreted languages to assembly language.
But it's easy for c code and other compiled languages, as that's what the compiler does. If you watch your tmp directory while compiling stuff you can see .s files appearing and disappearing. They contain the compiled code in assembly language. If you add '-S' to the gcc command, it stops after compilation, does not assemble, leaving the .s assembly code for you to study.
Reusing the machine generated assembler files probably will be widely useless, because the result of compilation will be barely different as speed or size.
And excuse my ignorance, but I believed that rewriting a program (or an entire Linux ecosystem) means analyzing its original source code, i.e. the C/C++ files, then the programmer to write by hand a new application in Pascal or Assembler or whatever, which program behaves identically with the original one.
This would mean that the programmer doing this have an excellent knowledge of the original programming language and the associated APIs and ABIs, and also of the target programming language and the associated APIs and ABIs.
And let's do not forget the bugs - at this amount of source code written, probably there will be trillions of specific bugs. Who will fix them?
I for one, I sincerely believe that the OP has no idea how big and complex is the proposed target. As well, he could have said "let's build a superlight speed engine" ...
Anyway, the idea of an operating system written entirely in Assembler is nothing new. For example, there is MenuetOS:
Wonder yourself: if the MenuetOS is so fast (yet, it's) then WHY it's not mainstream instead of Linux or BSD? And if it's that simple to write operating systems in assembler, why MenuetOS is still rudimentary after 12 years of development? WHy it does not have millions of users?
And while not open source (yet?) let's do not forget that MS-DOS (all versions) and Windows 1.0 was entirely written in assembler.
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 05-26-2022 at 10:30 AM.
Reusing the machine generated assembler files probably will be widely useless, because result of compilation will be barely different as speed of size.
The executable code would be exactly the same, of course. But it would fullfill the OP's request to "translate all of the latest release of Slackware 64 sourcecode to Assembler", I guess.
Quote:
I believed that rewriting a program (or an entire Linux ecosystem) means analyzing its original source code, i.e. the C/C++ files, then the programmer to write by hand a new application in Pascal or Assembler or whatever, which program behaves identically with the original one.
He could start by creating a version of the Linux kernel first, hand written in assembly language.
Like I said, the OP does not invented the wheel - however, we should note that nobody else was that nuts to propose the forking of the entire Linux ecosystem.
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 05-26-2022 at 10:47 AM.
Ok let's think in programmer years. Just Linux kernel already has tens of thousands of programmer years.
That means that to (re)write it, roughly one programmer would need to work tens of thousands of years. Or a team of tens of programmers would need a thousand years. Or a team of thousand programmers would work for decades. And so on.
That's just the kernel, imagine how many more lines of code the userland contains. The idea is completely bonkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz
I'd like them more, if they removed that stupid trackpad nipple in the middle of the keyboard, there is no point to it imo.
Without that little wonder, I'd stop using ThinkPads.
Ok let's think in programmer years. Just Linux kernel already has tens of thousands of programmer years.
That means that to (re)write it, roughly one programmer would need to work tens of thousands of years. Or a team of tens of programmers would need a thousand years. Or a team of thousand programmers would work for decades. And so on.
That's just the kernel, imagine how many more lines of code the userland contains. The idea is completely bonkers.
Without that little wonder, I'd stop using ThinkPads.
To each their own, but it always got in the way when typing and just is a nuisance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amikoyan
I find it zooms around way too fast for me to use it properly. I am sure there is a setting to slow it down, but is it worth investigating?
This! Either it was too fast/sensitive , or then suddenly too slow and a pain to get to a window - for me it is worse than the touchpad, and least with that I can navigate somewhat better, if I don't have a mouse on hand. That orange thing is just fscking useless imo.
Ok let's think in programmer years. Just Linux kernel already has tens of thousands of programmer years.
That means that to (re)write it, roughly one programmer would need to work tens of thousands of years. Or a team of tens of programmers would need a thousand years. Or a team of thousand programmers would work for decades. And so on.
This isn't exactly true. While the kernel does have tens of thousands of programmer years, you would not need to take all that time to translate the kernel to a new language. Many of the lines of code written in those thousands of years of coding have been removed/replaced/refactored, and you wouldn't need to recreate all the history of the kernel to get to a modern kernel.
We're still looking at an unfathomably long time to rewrite the kernel, but it would be at least an order of magnitude less than what it took to get to this point.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.