Re: [TUHS] CMU Mach sources?

[Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:32:32PM -0400, Ben Greenfield via TUHS wrote:
> I would be more impressed if those criticizing weren???t so hand-wavy and had more specific points???.

OK, I'll bite.  Go read the source in the FreeBSD tree, which has been 
reduced in size by 60% according to someone on the team.  Then come
back and draw me a picture of what it does.

I get that what I'm asking is non-trivial, I've tried to do it and failed.
As a pretty green guy it took me months to do that for SunOS but I could
feel myself getting closer.  I never got that feeling in the Mach code,
I kept getting lost in code that made me say "why is this here?"

What I've been trying to say all along is getting something to work is
different from making something that both works and is clean.  When
something is clean it is like a well written paper, it is actively
trying to help you understand the information.  I value clean code,
and I'm not a fan of people excusing messy code because researchers
did it.  As someone said to me in private, those same researchers 
are expected to write clear and understandable papers, why is code
any different?

I also agree with whoever said the Mach guys were trying out all sorts
of different ideas, that's cool.  What's not cool is that when those
ideas didn't pan out they left in all the substrate that had proven to
be not needed.

And I'll freely admit Mach left a sour taste in my mouth.  I read all
the papers and those lead me to believe that the code would be on par
with the SunOS code.  When I finally got to read it I felt like a kid
who was promised nice things only to have them taken away.