Javascript is a horrible choice but I think having a scripting language for this is actually quite a good idea. If only there was a popular scripting language that didn't totally suck balls.
UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
81–90 of 117 posts
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s good enough for missile guidance systems, it’s good enough for me.
I don't have real context here, but I can imagine that a platform where the hardware costs millions of dollars, will be booted up in "Production" exactly once, and is guaranteed to be physically destroyed before it hits 1 day of uptime, just "Give it 128GB of RAM and YOLO (literally)" is great advice! Note: 128GB of DRAM may add another million dollars to the build cost by 2027 at the current derivative of the $/GB c…
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#83Oh hey, we've reached the "Metal" stage! https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
I don't know if it's only me, but did this guy... Did this guy make a huge mistake?
I think he was trying to bend reality with words. I can see many apps that are running in electron on my laptop, each consuming 300MB+ (e.g. Spotify), while many other apps are written in native Swift for example, especially with the help of AI, giving the best performance possible...
Edit.
And prices of RAM nowadays...
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automatic Garbage Collection in a kernel probably won't work: I vaguely remember hearing about someone trying to use .Net in the Windows kernel. The big problem is garbage collection: If I remember correctly, the fact that "any" operation can fail with an out of memory exception was a huge problem. Another problem was that random pauses for garbage collections in the kernel had major stability issues. In short, I hop…
> I vaguely remember hearing about someone trying to use .Net in the Windows kernel. Microsoft did that, it was called Longhorn. That release cycle was long delayed and they abandoned most of its ambitious projects, especially C# in the kernel, and the result was Windows Vista. GC was not the only reason for the failure of that project. Someone could write a book about it. A lot of it was actually more about the orga…
> trying to use .Net in the Windows kernel.
> Microsoft did that, it was called Longhorn
Do you have any reference for that? Or are you confusing Longhorn with Singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)) / Midori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(operating_system))?
I suspect you're referring to the shell/internals, though, not the kernel (https://longhorn.ms/the-reset/#:~:text=Why%20start%20over,re...)
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#85Oh hey, we've reached the "Metal" stage! https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
I don't know if it's only me, but did this guy... Did this guy make a huge mistake? I think he was trying to bend reality with words. I can see many apps that are running in electron on my laptop, each consuming 300MB+ (e.g. Spotify), while many other apps are written in native Swift for example, especially with the help of AI, giving the best performance possible... Edit. And prices of RAM nowadays...
Those apps are not consuming 300MB of RAM because they are written in JS. JS is running on microcontrollers and the James Webb Space Telescope.
They are consuming 300MB of RAM because they are built on Electron and the NPM ecosystem.
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#86I think there are two philosophies here: 1) JavaScript must stay in the box (aka in the browser). 2) JavaScript as a general purpose programming language. While I can absolutely understand 1), I have had wanted to access the filesystem via JavaScript, just as I do via ruby or python, for local use only. After I googled for a while, they would say that this is not possible unless one uses npm/node. I think this shows…
> I googled for a while, they would say that this is not possible unless one uses npm/node
Gnome Shell and Firefox/SeaMonkey/Mozilla Application Suite/Netscape 6+ (and Zotero[1]) are implemented on top of SpiderMonkey.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46735616>
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I vaguely remember hearing about someone trying to use .Net in the Windows kernel. Microsoft did that, it was called Longhorn. That release cycle was long delayed and they abandoned most of its ambitious projects, especially C# in the kernel, and the result was Windows Vista. GC was not the only reason for the failure of that project. Someone could write a book about it. A lot of it was actually more about the orga…
> trying to use .Net in the Windows kernel. > Microsoft did that, it was called Longhorn Do you have any reference for that? Or are you confusing Longhorn with Singularity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system) ) / Midori ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(operating_system) )? I suspect you're referring to the shell/internals, though, not the kernel ( https://longhorn.ms/the-reset/#:~:tex…
My source for that is I was on the Windows team at Microsoft from 2008-2011. I learned a bunch of this history from talking to coworkers who were there. I specifically recall people talking about c# in the kernel.
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And, if so, does that mean that once the API has been bootstrapped, one could actually write an OS in js? I bet somebody has done that. https://www.google.com/search?q=os+kernel+in+javascript Seems like a small number of hobbyists have attempted. I've heard of people doing this with other high level languages. Basically you need enough low level code to bootstrap a VM. Once you have that, you can make the high leve…
You'd need to write an entire hardware abstraction layer to do anything useful. There's projects that do this for microcontrollers - eg MicroPython and Espruino.
Should be able to do similar with MicroQuickJS or maybe just QuickJS...
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#89next step is to create a UEFI TUI using react (please don't)
Considering how bad some of the Gamer-ish firmware UIs are now, it might be an improvement.
Re: UEFI Bindings for JavaScript
#90I think there are two philosophies here: 1) JavaScript must stay in the box (aka in the browser). 2) JavaScript as a general purpose programming language. While I can absolutely understand 1), I have had wanted to access the filesystem via JavaScript, just as I do via ruby or python, for local use only. After I googled for a while, they would say that this is not possible unless one uses npm/node. I think this shows…
I've been using Deno a LOT for general shell scripting... it's been pretty nice in general. FWIW, Node, Bun and Deno have FS interfaces in the box, so yes, you can do it without npm modules. Though Deno allows you to directly reference the modules/repos from the script without needing a separate install step, package.json or node_modules directory.
It's also a single, self-updating executable and includes a lot in the box. Including SQLite3.