From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: Shepherd and Guille Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:58:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87a7mkm24m.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <20181030203931.Horde.EDavbeYeoefPBQZ9euUxC25@mail.ingiro.xyz> <87o9b9ig4l.fsf@exinda.orion.oneofus.la> <87h8gxqj0n.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181107231234.Horde.GJcOfWxRUgR6leHv2K2Odev@mail.ingiro.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKfDO-0001EL-0Y for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:58:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKfDK-0000e9-Hf for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:58:57 -0500 Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.230]:50135) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKfDK-0000be-7Q for help-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 02:58:54 -0500 In-reply-to: <20181107231234.Horde.GJcOfWxRUgR6leHv2K2Odev@mail.ingiro.xyz> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Wayne Cc: Help Guix --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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 reason= ing: "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.=20 vs. > my concern is that it=E2=80=99s written in Guile, an interpreted (or > bytecode-interpreted) language with garbage collection =E2=80=93 and Why is it a concern now that the author just said doing the other way aroun= d is criticized? Argumentation is completely lacking. > I see both the =E2=80=9Cinterpreted=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cgarbage collect= ion=E2=80=9D parts as undesirable for system-level software > (especially for a potential init).=20 Why? How are the two related? The author might be confabulating between k= ernel and system-level. > Interpreted software will be less efficient (if not in actual speed, since > I=E2=80=99ll acknowledge that JITs can do amazing things, at least in mem= ory usage) So if not actual speed, then what is less efficient? The author does not s= ay... Actually the more I read it, the more it sounds like a complete heap of non-sense :D =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlvj7LkACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH85fwgAizw6AjqH5luG8yEtaAPHs8RV1JzqzyMlUYUHrRlqs/0Sh2zQwipeCRrP saufwy3plOYOvMACMdzk1ceqHV85T3Yr9XVWYefvqUB11yOT1fPIza8NGjJYJurI Fzc64qS68J7bdIC/e7sloBYPD91jzwKPAb7BpTu5lQpHw4/K7lU5R9I+8wA9/4b8 92rUt/GKYMtl/xE4N6ThJGt+PKDsOUCX0I+z96VGPEBXPFL3UHN1U7ci7SzVxFAJ 5xUdU8g8tlsXklwKBSczl1G3DF6/u8Zh7ayCcINDZ3zyzW+1ATrLqBTr6dRh+D9i KWuH4qYlCvLIsHoxzI56Q1iLSH8SlA== =xshR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--