[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shepherd and Guille
From: |
Pierre Neidhardt |
Subject: |
Re: Shepherd and Guille |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:58:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 |
> the point about using GC/JIT/etc. languages for "critical" software like init
> seemed somewhat worth investigating.
Actually, why? I read this, and to me it sounded like the following reasoning:
"if it's critical, then it has to be a _systems_ language, i.e. C or C++ (or
rust?)".
The author seems to contradict himself and be very confused about this. If
you read the Shepherd paragraph, compare:
> The decision to write important system-level software in non-memory-safe
> languages such as C and
> C++ has been criticised.
vs.
> my concern is that it’s written in Guile, an interpreted (or
> bytecode-interpreted) language with garbage collection – and
Why is it a concern now that the author just said doing the other way around is
criticized? Argumentation is completely lacking.
> I see both the “interpreted” and “garbage collection” parts as undesirable
> for system-level software
> (especially for a potential init).
Why? How are the two related? The author might be confabulating between kernel
and system-level.
> Interpreted software will be less efficient (if not in actual speed, since
> I’ll acknowledge that JITs can do amazing things, at least in memory usage)
So if not actual speed, then what is less efficient? The author does not say...
Actually the more I read it, the more it sounds like a complete heap of
non-sense :D
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature