Home-grown OSs seem a great way to scratch the itch of wanting a system that you can understand every level of … much better IMHO than resurrecting old systems like CP/M or the NES. Modern ISAs are so much nicer to work with than the 6502 or Z-80, you don’t have to sweat to shoehorn everything into 64KB, and of course you can use higher level languages.
If I were doing this it’d be fun to have a little kernel with a little Forthlike interpreter on it, then build higher levels in that.
What is the design like? It seems like I’m expected to read the source code just to figure out the basic overall architecture. A diagram wouldn’t have hurt.
Home-grown OSs seem a great way to scratch the itch of wanting a system that you can understand every level of … much better IMHO than resurrecting old systems like CP/M or the NES. Modern ISAs are so much nicer to work with than the 6502 or Z-80, you don’t have to sweat to shoehorn everything into 64KB, and of course you can use higher level languages.
If I were doing this it’d be fun to have a little kernel with a little Forthlike interpreter on it, then build higher levels in that.
I’d target m68k (friendliest ISA ever) or RISC-V (the future).
IBM PC is overrated as target.
Not if you want to actually buy hardware it’s not.
You’d end up using an emulator with IBM PC, because the hardware support isn’t there.
MIT license, I like it.
What is the design like? It seems like I’m expected to read the source code just to figure out the basic overall architecture. A diagram wouldn’t have hurt.
This seems to be common in OS dev in general, alas. :-(
Thanks for sharing! This aligns perfectly with my current interest.