Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by einpoklum | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

einpoklum

> BRUTAL is an operating system built from scratch in modern C.

Modern as in C11?

> BRUTAL is built on top of a capabilty based micro-kernel.

Their own, or somebody else's? Why can't they just say which?

> BRUTAL targets x86_64, i686, RISC-V and ARM.

Ok, a decent set of targets, certainly for starting out with.

> BRUTAL exposes its features to developers through clean APIs.

Which are listed where?

> BRUTAL features a rich and modern C library complete with fibers, custom allocators, generic data structures, and more...

Did they reimplement the entire C library? Added a backed/port for an existing library?

I like Brutalism in design, don't like Minimalism in documentation.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=brutalism&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=im...

View on HN

Hi, Sorry if our doc is not fully fleshed out yet, the project is still in the early stages, and APIs and idioms keep changing rapidly.

> Modern as in C11?

As in bleeding-edge C23

> Their own, or somebody else's? Why can't they just say which?

Our own

> Which are listed where?

We have a Doxygen doc but it's not published yet.

> Did they reimplement the entire C library?

Yes

Hopes this answers your questions

This is really awesome. I'll definitely be following the development of this OS!

You figure you'll keep with the bleeding edge C standards for the future?

Also, if someone wanted to build compatibility layers out to other FOSS OSes into the system somewhere would that be tolerated? For example drivers from other OSes could massively improve quality of life and usability.

Thanks for the prompt response and +1 for me. But... why spell this out _here_? Add that info to your documentation. For a new OS to be adopted, good documentation is probably even more important than good performance :-P

> As in bleeding-edge C23

Well... looking at what's coming C23: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/23

I see mostly syntactic sugar and a few adoptions from POSIX; and C17 didn't change much either. So, for me, this is basically C11 - which I still find very modern and does not seem that widely adopted TBH. So good on you. (But make sure to support code in older C standard versions.)

Also, I doubt that it is really a good idea to reimplement libc. I would assume taking on even more work than the already huge effort that is an OS would either slow you down or reduce quality. IIRC, when Linux got started, Torvalds ported gcc along with glibc and also bash. Could you explain your choice of a different direction?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com