No more big 32-bit cores for RISC OS from 2022

Thought I’d throw in my twopenny’s worth, and resurrect the thread, instead of cracking on with my DIY jobs.

As a user who is considering programming but otherwise uses computers for creative and communication purposes, perhaps I have a different perspective than those who are expert programmers and have strong views on how things should be done in a technical sense. So here we go:

1. Clinging on to old apps is not the future of the OS. Porting modern apps and attracting new developers who will write great new apps is. Any app currently being maintained that is not in BASIC or C (or any other supported compiled language) would need to be rewritten to be so, or simply replaced. This is something RISC OS users do that I don’t understand – cling on to software that’s long been abandoned. It especially makes no sense when you look at people sticking to Computer Concepts software when there were active developers of much more modern alternatives. Meanwhile, Computer Concepts were only too happy to utterly ignore the RISC OS market. Slightly different than free or open source text editors, granted, but the highly capable minds that maintain such software would, in the event of 64bit RISC OS, surely be better applied rewriting such things in a compiled language or developing something new. The only exception I can think of is Sibelius7, which has never had a competitor of the same calibre on RISC OS, but there are now things like Muse which could be ported.

2. I’d want RISC OS 7 (64bit as it’s obvious that needs to happen) to look and behave, GUI-wise, exactly the same as standard RISC OS 5, with people able to reskin it if they wanted it to look different. I’m sat looking at Mac OS 13 right now and there are striking similarities with RISC OS, demonstrating that Acorn got a lot right decades before others caught up.

3. I personally wouldn’t care about RISC OS 7 being multiple user, but I think newcomers would want that

4. I’d want multithreading to be implemented in the way it is in the majority of other OSes, not necessarily in the way which is technically preferable, because that way there is more chance of attracting new developers, and porting software would surely be more straight forward (says the non-programmer). In other words, the pragmatic approach.

5. I’d want a built-in firewall

6. I’d want Python installed as standard with upgrading it made easy (because Python is a big thing now)

7. End of reliance on the Norcroft compiler, and development tools to match other platforms included with the OS (again to attract new developers)

8. BBC BASIC modernised and kept built-in to RISC OS

The internal gubbins I wouldn’t have a clue about. I like RISC OS as it is, but clearly we are suffering from a catastrophic lack of modern applications and an impending need to be 64bit, and I would have thought something along the lines of the above would help resolve those things simply by making RISC OS more attractive to developers or those who might want to try their hand at becoming developers, such as me.

BBC BASIC modernised and kept built-in to RISC OS

Why? I would just keep on using Lua. A modernised BASIC is nail/stone soup. Unfortunately it is the Basics, the foundations, of Basic that are inadequate. BASIC cannot be modernised (sorry Steve), which is probably why it evokes so much nostalgia. Let it go.

probably why it evokes so much nostalgia. Let it go

I’m not the least bit nostalgic about BASIC – it’s just that I’m totally familiar with it, and at my age honestly can’t be bothered to learn any new languages. I used to know quite a few old languages, but they’re no use now. I sailed through a C++ course twenty years ago but have never used it in anger, and like C, the language itself is trivial anyway – it’s the bloody libraries: an indeterminate, moving target. I used ARM Assembler heavily back in 26-bit days, and wrote the book on 32-bit up to v7 (but have never really used it in anger), but have little use for that now.

I’ll keep writing in BASIC as long as it’s available. To judge by the number of downloads, quite a few people find the little apps I write useful, which is nice. But I doubt I’ll bother to learn Python or Lua or anything else now.

I like the fact BASIC is built in and there’s a decent amount of support and knowledge available. At the very least I’d want it keeping, if not developing.

If Python were supplied pre-installed along with the major libraries taken for granted elsewhere, and it were easy to create WIMP apps in it, that would probably be better I suppose.

Does Lua match up to Python in terms of ease-of-use and available libraries to import and use (on the major platforms, that is)?

There are versions of Lua for all the major platforms, but is normally used for extending other programs — usually those written in C++.

Python has a far larger range of libraries — it is installed by default on almost all Linux distress. You can get the current Python on the Microsoft Store for Windows — the system will prompt you if you type “Python” into the CLI or try to run a Python script.

MacOS used to come with a version of Python installed, but this was removed a while back. Only Swift is officially supported on that platform now.

Thank God it was removed. It played havoc with new versions for those of us not in the know.

I’m not the least bit nostalgic about BASIC – it’s just that I’m totally familiar with it, and at my age honestly can’t be bothered to learn any new languages.

@Clive. Apologies for using the word nostalgic . But we know each other well enough by now :)

@Michael. Most software is designed to be compiled in Linux, MacOS or Windows. Porting it to run in RISC OS is usually impossible, or at best a considerable pain. Most, but not Lua, for historical reasons. Lua evolved from a project commissioned by the Brazilian State Oil Company, Petrobras, and an early constraint was that it should compile on any system with an ANSI C compiler. RISC OS is such. David is quite right. Lua has minimalist principles, Python is batteries-included.

BBC BASIC was designed as part of a two-barrelled approach to programming. Use BASIC for the high level stuff and the built-in assembler for the low level when you need speed. It is the same story for Lua: use Lua for high level, and C for the low-level. So there is a sort of equation

BASIC / Assembler ~ Lua / C

Apologies for using the word nostalgic.

ROFL – not a problem! Anyway, it could well be true in some cases…

Porting modern apps

Problem is, RISC OS is so very different to everything else these days (specifically a lack of preemption that is just assumed in a POSIX world).

This is something RISC OS users do that I don’t understand – cling on to software that’s long been abandoned.

Perhaps “what I have is familiar and works for me”. I, for example, still use XP in the rare times I use my PC because it runs some specific packages that work for me. Yes, newer better ¹ versions exist… but why should I pay £$€ to upgrade to do what I’m doing right now?

I’d want a built-in firewall

Why? If you’re relying on the machine you’re trying to protect to look after itself, you’ve already lost the battle.
Doesn’t your router act as a firewall? Or use something like PiHole?

The internal gubbins I wouldn’t have a clue about.

Kill it stone dead. Any future version of RISC OS will need to be C at the very least, assembler is a no-go. Which suggests a lessening or complete removal of the heavily used SWI mechanism. How do systems like Linux handle accessing routines in loadable modules?

Unfortunately, there are some who want the current API to be preserved, which… yeah… not a winning idea for so many reasons. Really, any future RISC OS should be processor agnostic. Linux managed it. So did Minix (even if half of them are dead projects).

I’ll go +1 for keeping BASIC, basically because I know it and don’t want to have to learn the quirks of a new language. Python is offputting to me because it breaks the “whitespace doesn’t count” rule, and the Python2/Python3 thing managed to be an even bigger omnishambles than the PHP major upgrades that are usually assured to break a bunch of things.
Lua? Quirky. And arrays start at 1, unlike everything else on the planet.
VisualBasic tried that too, but at least they had an OPTION at the top if you really wanted it (the default was 0).
Oh, and what’s with the variable scoping weirdness? I’m certainly no expert at Lua (I don’t think I could make a functioning program yet), but it seems to me that variables defined as local are block-local, and everything else is global. That would be worse than even BASIC that has function-local variables, and a massive step back from C that offers block, function, and module levels of local; along with static local for semi-persistence between invocations.

¹ “Better” is debatable, the newer versions look dumbed down.

Hi Rick.

Point taken about “what works for me” but in a small market like ours, even the size it was ten years ago, that’s not conducive to a healthy future. It’s fine on Windows with its hundreds of millions of users.

Actually, I have no idea if my router acts as a firewall. It’s just the one that BT dishes out. My Mac here has a firewall, and Windows does, so I figured it’s part of a modern OS. Do Linux distributions? It was just part of my thoughts of appealing to new blood, the same as multiuser. I don’t want multiuser personally, but it seems to be the norm now.

I have no idea if my router acts as a firewall. It’s just the one that BT dishes out.

It does. You can look at, and change, its settings via its web page.

Cheers – I shall do, that. Why do they shove them in OSes then, if everyone’s router has a firewall built in?!

Yes, newer better 1 versions exist… but why should I pay £$€ to upgrade to do what I’m doing right now?

If you look at the minimum spec hardware for Windows 10, then assuming that is matched, and being happy to live with restrictions on customising the desktop and having a tattooed reminder of the non-licenced install in the bottom right of your screen then you just install Win10 for free.

If you happen to have a Win7 install, then it’s possible to “upgrade” to 10 for free.

Some of your apps barf and simply running the OS and the built-in AV/anti-malware eats most of 4GB ? WTF ? 4GB barely runs the OS alone??? sigh…

Why do they shove them in OSes then, if everyone’s router has a firewall built in?!

There’s a very specific use case for software firewalls which probably don’t apply to us but will apply in corporate/healthcare/etc, and that is protecting the machine against infected devices within the internal network.
We all know C-suite expect to use their personal devices, and that there dumb enough to click on booby trapped emails. Well, bing! One pwned device on the inside. With software firewalls, it helps keep the risk down. Not perfect, but better than nothing (the average C-suite chair felt being the definition of nothing).

that’s not conducive to a healthy future.

True. On one hand people want to sell stuff. On the other hand, people are happy with what they have…

(plus austerity, inflation, etc etc)

I don’t want multiuser personally,

Define “multiuser”. The ability to set up user profiles? The ability to hold user files that are only visible to that user? Or the ability to host multiple users at the same time?

The latter case was quite a shock using RDP to my XP box. I was expecting a copy of my desktop, like VNC but just a different protocol.
What I wasn’t expecting was to see a completely different and unique virtual desktop running its own programs completely independently (and invisibly) to the on-screen desktop.
That was freaky, but kind of impressive.

eats most of 4GB ? WTF ? 4GB barely runs the OS alone???

There you go. ’nuff said.

Why do they shove them in OSes then, if everyone’s router has a firewall built in?!

With the way Windows FW misbehaves it has to be bordering on malware itself, so a network perimeter firewall is a better idea.
However, your standard router software really doesn’t cut the ice. That’s where running something like OPNSense on a router/firewall box (or a spare small PC) helps.

Rick and Steve: Thanks for the enlightenment on firewalls. Good to know.

Rick: Multiuser to me means different profiles, with the first being admin. Software and discs/directories either available to everyone or just the user installing/creating them.

Speaking of which, if RISC OS had such a thing, would it be possible to still install software by dragging the icon to the directory you want it in? And then have a message appear asking if this was just for that user or for everyone, and thus keeping the traditional way of installing things (unless of course the software had its own installer).

There’s a very specific use case for software firewalls which probably don’t apply to us but will apply in corporate/healthcare/etc, and that is protecting the machine against infected devices within the internal network.

In enterprise networks the modern thing to do is define where traffic is allowed to go and then inspect what does go that way. Check out software defined networks.

Firewalls: If you accept the typical supplier view on how wonderful their kit and their support links are and “whitelist” – you’re toast.
When they say whitelist they mean allow everything without inspection – a colleague and I have “many good words” for that and all are “NSFW”¹ so, what we actually do is restrict until the suppliers complain and then add a notch. :)
They specifically ask us not to do it, but every connection they make is inspected, we just don’t tell them.
Over a decade² of being awkward, restrictive pains in the nether, and most suppliers now know not to argue. Incidence of network aware malware in that time? Silly small fractions of a percent. Things aren’t perfect, but we can aim that direction.

¹ NSFW doesn’t actually preclude their use, it just means people mutter when you use them

² I think it’s around 15 since I was given the go ahead to be a restrictive pain-in-the-ass

And arrays start at 1, unlike everything else on the planet.

Real programming languages allow array indexes to be of any discrete type. Like e.g. enums. Why every array should start with 0 or 1 as an index is…a very strange idea.

[It] was quite a shock using RDP to my XP box. I was expecting a copy of my desktop, like VNC but just a different protocol.
What I wasn’t expecting was to see a completely different and unique virtual desktop running its own programs completely independently (and invisibly) to the on-screen desktop.

Interesting. My XP box, acessed using RDPClient, gives the same desktop as I see using the normal (but no longer connected monitor) – as you say, like VNC.

I also access Win 7 with the same result. I keep promising myself that, one day, I will set that up to access XP-mode which does have its own desktop using a virtual machine.

My XP box, acessed using RDPClient, gives the same desktop as I see using the normal (but no longer connected monitor)

Visually it looks the same, in fact it uses the desktop layout customisation in your user profile – but what you see with VNC is a remote view of what is actually happening on that (not connected) monitor, whereas RDP is shifting your desktop use to your remote viewing logon location and the local (not connected) monitor would show a lock screen.

Two VNC sessions would show the identical mouse/keyboard/application activity.
Two RDP sessions (if Windows desktop allowed multiple like the server edition) would show two different desktops with distinct mouse/keyboard/application activity.