From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 17469 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2022 22:34:06 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Feb 2022 22:34:06 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BB3569D4C7; Sat, 5 Feb 2022 08:34:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A3695192; Sat, 5 Feb 2022 08:33:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AEDD695192; Sat, 5 Feb 2022 08:33:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from sdaoden.eu (sdaoden.eu [217.144.132.164]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2FE995111 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2022 08:33:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from kent.sdaoden.eu (kent.sdaoden.eu [10.5.0.2]) by sdaoden.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8E416059; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 23:33:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by kent.sdaoden.eu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DAEB658708; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 23:25:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 23:25:43 +0100 Author: Steffen Nurpmeso From: Steffen Nurpmeso To: Hellwig Geisse Message-ID: <20220204222543.ZU3DO%steffen@sdaoden.eu> In-Reply-To: <1644006490.2458.78.camel@mni.thm.de> References: <202202011537.211FbYSe017204@freefriends.org> <20220201155225.5A9541FB21@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <202202020747.2127lTTh005669@freefriends.org> <7C19F93B-4F21-4BB1-A064-0307D3568DB7@cfcl.com> <1nFWmo-1Gn-00@marmaro.de> <1644006490.2458.78.camel@mni.thm.de> Mail-Followup-To: Hellwig Geisse , tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org User-Agent: s-nail v14.9.23-229-gaf530c5f70 OpenPGP: id=EE19E1C1F2F7054F8D3954D8308964B51883A0DD; url=https://ftp.sdaoden.eu/steffen.asc; preference=signencrypt BlahBlahBlah: Any stupid boy can crush a beetle. But all the professors in the world can make no bugs. Subject: Re: [TUHS] more about Brian... X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Hellwig Geisse wrote in <1644006490.2458.78.camel@mni.thm.de>: |Hi Thomas, | |On Fr, 2022-02-04 at 20:45 +0100, Thomas Paulsen wrote: |> I tell you one thing: I never ever experienced any problems with |> traditional malloc()/free(). | |did you ever write a program which does heavy malloc()/free() |on complicated (i.e., shared) data structures *and* runs for |days, perhaps weeks? IMO it's very difficult to do this without Yes. |a GC, and you have to exercise quite an amount of discipline |to do it right. And i fail to see the relationship really. Especially given that all kernels and all daemons i know (he!) are all written in C. Object based programming is surely easier to manage, as containers manage containers manage containers manage whatever allocations. So you have a very natural chain of life, so to say. |> A kernel using GC is a kernel written by inexperienced kids. | |Well, not exactly. Niklaus Wirth's Oberon kernel (around 1990) |used a GC, and it did that quite efficiently. Well i have no idea of that also really, so i am not saying anything. I never liked GC; i looked at the source of "that" C GC however (yes, i have forgotten the name). It maybe different to languages like Nim or Lua or, sigh, JAVA, Go and such environments etc., where possibly every object is reference counted. And that where recursive mutexes are declared evil for performance reasons, and kernel code is full of ASSERT(is_locked()) stuff. But this is speculative execution and thus far out of my league. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)