rpi4-osdev VS circle

GitHub - isometimes/rpi4-osdev: Tutorial: Writing a "bare metal" operating system for Raspberry Pi 4

Basically i can compile and run this -> https://github.com/isometimes/rpi4-osdev/tree/master/part5-framebuffer (and i'm sure every other implementation) just fine but only if i load it with gdb through jtags and then hit continue (c). If i put the exact same kernel (kernel8.img) on the sd and disconnect any hw debugger, it gets stuck at the rainbow spash screen and won't continue. This is wheter enable_jtag_gpio is set to 0 or 1. This makes absolutely no sense to me and i'd love to get an opinion on why it behaves this way and if it underlines a bigger problem.

Something like this would be probably in the top 1% of hobby projects and as far as I can tell, it involves zero EE work: Writing a "bare metal" operating system for Raspberry Pi 4.

This might be of help: https://github.com/isometimes/rpi4-osdev (it’s for the RPi4, but I imagine most of it being applicable to the RPi1).

IMO the best way to get into this type of low-level tinkering is by writing a simple operating system.

https://github.com/isometimes/rpi4-osdev

There are other courses/projects for other boards. The keyword is usually “baremetal”.

For Linux drivers specifically there are training material from Bootlin for instance.

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.