But you also avoided the point I was making, which was that, at aI didn't avoid it - it's just irrelevant to *my* point. Hiding the complexity of the hardware from the application programmer is something any operating system worth the name should do. I'm talking about that part of the OS that lives between the application programmer and the hardware - that part is easier to reimplement for SLS than it is for any other architecture.
programming level, there's really nothing about the underlying
architecture of a single level store system that the programmer has to be
aware of. From the programmer's perspective, programming is all about
writing open, read, write, update, and close operations.
To recap, here's your original statement:
The essential goodness of SLS is that no part of the application is
ever involved with moving things between memory and disk. Everything
has an address, and when you access that address, the operating
system decides whether data is available or whether it needs to be
My point is simply that, strictly speaking, the same could be said about
conventional O/S architectures. It's the job of the (modern) O/S to shield
these details from the application programmer. (Then again, maybe we're
just arguing semantic nuances here.)
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.