This is a very good article. It seems to be part of the horrendously expensive book "Reflections on Programming Systems - Historical and Philosophical Aspects"
I can confirm that the referenced article is chapter 6 in De Mol's and Primiero's book, which from my humble point of view is a typical Springer book, far a way in an ivory tower.
May I ask in what respect you find the article/chapter "very good"?
I rather think the author makes a fundamental category error (by comparing a complete operating system with kernel, system calls, process management, file systems, and userland utilities, with a programming language, runtime environment, and object library). Also the assumptions about Unix are wrong; Unix - in it's most incarnations - has a monolithic kernel architecture, a fixed system call interface, a rigid separation between kernel and user space, and (originally) static linking as the primary model. The "composable" aspects Kell emphasizes (pipes, small tools) exist at the userland level, not in the fundamental OS architecture. Further, Unix shared objects (.so files) and dynamic loading mechanisms predate widespread Smalltalk influence; the System V and BSD implementations of dynamic linking were driven by practical memory constraints, not Smalltalk inspiration. And every operating system is a "live system that can be modified while running" to some degree. The chapter reads more like an exercise in pattern matching than serious technical analysis. While academic exploration of conceptual relationships between systems can be valuable, it requires much more rigorous attention to technical details and historical accuracy than Kell provides.
> Also the assumptions about Unix are wrong; Unix - in it's most incarnations …
Perhaps the author has chosen to ignore "most incarnations" and instead select what fits his story:
"In a traditional (pre-commercialisation) Unix system …" page 4
"When I write of “Unix” or “Smalltalk” in what follows, it will be important to distinguish their early, idealised conceptions from their later evolved forms …" page 6
This is a very good article. It seems to be part of the horrendously expensive book "Reflections on Programming Systems - Historical and Philosophical Aspects"
I can confirm that the referenced article is chapter 6 in De Mol's and Primiero's book, which from my humble point of view is a typical Springer book, far a way in an ivory tower.
May I ask in what respect you find the article/chapter "very good"?
I rather think the author makes a fundamental category error (by comparing a complete operating system with kernel, system calls, process management, file systems, and userland utilities, with a programming language, runtime environment, and object library). Also the assumptions about Unix are wrong; Unix - in it's most incarnations - has a monolithic kernel architecture, a fixed system call interface, a rigid separation between kernel and user space, and (originally) static linking as the primary model. The "composable" aspects Kell emphasizes (pipes, small tools) exist at the userland level, not in the fundamental OS architecture. Further, Unix shared objects (.so files) and dynamic loading mechanisms predate widespread Smalltalk influence; the System V and BSD implementations of dynamic linking were driven by practical memory constraints, not Smalltalk inspiration. And every operating system is a "live system that can be modified while running" to some degree. The chapter reads more like an exercise in pattern matching than serious technical analysis. While academic exploration of conceptual relationships between systems can be valuable, it requires much more rigorous attention to technical details and historical accuracy than Kell provides.
> Also the assumptions about Unix are wrong; Unix - in it's most incarnations …
Perhaps the author has chosen to ignore "most incarnations" and instead select what fits his story:
"In a traditional (pre-commercialisation) Unix system …" page 4
"When I write of “Unix” or “Smalltalk” in what follows, it will be important to distinguish their early, idealised conceptions from their later evolved forms …" page 6
Not even the "traditional (pre-commercialisation) Unix system" fits his story.
Free yourself from the chains of modernist narrative!