3 ms·

I wouldn't call it "broken". The tools we have today will be "broken" by tomorrow's standards as well.

• nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Not necessarily the same. I didn't call the Oberon System broken because it had a sane CPU, problem areas hidden behind good interfaces, whole system in safer language, and thorough documentation of every aspect. Whether I like it or not for my needs, I wouldn't call that a broken system in any way. C is so poorly designed [1] that we're just now getting formal semantics, reliable analysis, and CPU's that handle it safely. UNIX ecosystem is similarly broken [2] [3]. Intel CPU's have all kinds of legacy holdovers, bugs, over-privileged components, and complexity in general. So, calling the current stacks broken by design makes sense without any implications for future stacks that might be better or worse. Want to have one that's better? Just make a sensible design, document it well, aim for simplicity where possible, keep it efficient, ensure its safe in normal operation, and give it good interfaces for extension/maintenance. Those tend to lead to better designs or implementations. The crap we use today largely evolved due to social and market forces, not good technical reasons. [1] http://pastebin.com/UAQaWuWG http://pastebin.com/UAQaWuWG [2] https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 [3] http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.de...