Re: Shepherd and Guille

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]


> 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/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]