ostep-projects VS circle

We were taught by Remzi (the author behind OSTEP). He was one of the best professors I have met at UW madison. Unfortunate that I had to drop though. Some of the projects we did were open source btw https://github.com/remzi-arpacidusseau/ostep-projects

So, run-tests.sh is being run and the source could be found here

The intro says they have projects throughout the book. This is the git they listed for them https://github.com/remzi-arpacidusseau/ostep-projects

OSTEP by Remzi and Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau is a great read for anybody interested in operating systems (https://github.com/remzi-arpacidusseau/ostep-projects). The projects in their class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison were mainly making edits to the xv6 OS

Projects

But since you've already read a few OS books, I suggest you move on to actually peeking under the hood and playing around with the concepts. OSTEP has problems at the end of each chapter you can check out. You can also try to hack into a real "toy" operation, like xv6 - check out the problems here.

Sean Baxter created a front end c++ compiler by himself, using llvm for the back end and the gcc or clang stl. I think it took him a couple of years. https://www.circle-lang.org/. Before this happened I heard a couple of different people claiming that there would never be a totally new compiler as it was too much work.

The real Typescript for C++ is Circle.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

Just like Typescript to JavaScript, the syntax is an evolution of what already exists, not a completely different syntax.

Sean Baxter's Circle [1] is arguably the spiritual successor to MOP.

[1] https://www.circle-lang.org/

Context: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Note that Circle is not an F/OSS compiler as someone pointed out before. This however doesn't make Circle less relevant, because it is actually a testament to show that C++ could have been much better without the claimed breakage. If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same?

From all wannabe C++ replacements candidates, the only language that is really a TypeScript for C++, is Circle.

For whatever reason, Herb Sutter decided to ignore this language on the presentation.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

This is the only one with the syntax based on C++, incrementally changing the features via #pragma settings.

"Circle Fixes Defects, Makes C++ Language Safer & More Productive"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fxeNqSK2k

"Circle Evolves C++"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZDOGDMNLM

The second someone makes a successor language that seamlessly/directly interops with C++ _AND_ has the level of build/IDE tooling that C++/Rust have, I'm on board.

The closest thing right now is Sean Baxter's "Circle" compiler in "Carbon" mode IMO:

https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Unfortunately, Circle is closed-source and there's no LSP or other tooling to make the authoring experience nice.

I read through the whole of https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/README.md and man, I'm drooling. Awesome work, kudos.

Have a look at Circle from Sean Baxter [0]. It's pretty impressive.

[0]: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...