13 ms·

I'd like to know what the author considers "systems work"; I don't consider garbage-collected languages (Go, Python) "systems" languages.

by joobus 10y ago

adamnemecek 10y ago
You are probably referring to the sentence "Rust is quickly becoming my favorite language for all systems work (which is most of what I do anyway), and has largely replaced both Go, Python, and C/C++ in my day-to-day." One could also interpret is as "Rust is quickly becoming my favorite language for all systems work [...], and has __also__ largely replaced both Go, Python, and C/C++ in my day-to-day."
- Jonhoo 10y ago
  That is indeed how I meant it. That said, Go is certainly being used as a systems language, and especially in the domain of networked services, it is rapidly replacing C/C++.
  - Scarbutt 10y ago
    replacing python is a bit of stretch no? I'm sure you can, but is it practical? like for quickly hacking stuff up.
    - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
      I find getting stuff up and running with Go is quite easy. Just set up a small package with some quick hacks and then a separate file to run the package functions.
    - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
      I find getting stuff up and running with Go is quite easy. Just set up a small package with some quick hacks and then a separate file to run the package functions.
    - Jonhoo 10y ago
      Actually, no. I've found that I'm maybe even more productive in Rust than I am in Python, even for one-off tasks. The one exception is probably plotting, but I'm sure a Rust library for that isn't far off.
      - Scarbutt 10y ago
        Impressive, I'll have to check it out :)
      - jhasse 10y ago
        What's your replacement for Python REPLs like bpython or ptpython?
        Jonhoo 10y ago
        I barely, if ever, use/need a REPL. The shell has all the tools I need for short, one-off tasks.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Once upon a time I used Python for systems administration tasks and that was a long time ago, around 2003. Python doesn't offer much against languages that compile to native code, have type inference (if strong typed) and REPL. The only reason for me, would be if I am required to make use of a framework or library that requires me to use Python.
    - lmm 10y ago
      I use Scala for that kind of use case sometimes. If you have a REPL and you have good enough type inference you can pretty much just do what you would do in Python, and as a bonus you can reuse library functions from your real system rather than having to duplicate or shell out to them from your scripts
  - jguegant 10y ago
    "and especially in the domain of networked services, it is rapidly replacing C/C++." Rapidly? Where?
    - Jonhoo 10y ago
      I don't have any numbers to support this claim, but it's certainly true that we are seeing a lot of software being developed in Go, and network software in particular.
    - ngrilly 10y ago
      Examples of services that typically would have been written in C/C++ but are written in Go: Docker, YouTube Vitess (a MySQL proxy), CockroachDB (a distributed and strongly consistent SQL database). Other examples of companies using Go for network services: Dropbox (most backend), CloudFlare (Railgun and other things), Uber (geofencing), Bitly (messaging with NSQ), Disqus (realtime commenting), DigitalOcean, Heroku, SoundCloud, Dailymotion.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Thanks to the adoption of Docker, Dropbox and other well known SV companies. Even Microsoft is now contributing to the eco-system due to their collaboration with Docker. Also Joe Duffy (from MSR Midori) tweets about his Go experiences. Personally I prefer other languages, but I am surely happy to see more Go and less unsafe languages being used.
      - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
        Go also has the advantage of a simple syntax like Python. Moving some of our ETL processes to Go from Python has been quite easy.
    - ngrilly 10y ago
      There is also Netflix using it for a proxy: > The decision to use Go was deliberate, because we needed something that had lower latency than Java (where garbage collection pauses are an issue) and is more productive for developers than C, while also handling tens of thousands of client connections. Go fits this space well. Source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/05/application-data-caching-using-ssds.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/05/application-data-caching... Discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/4l0fv2/the_netflix_tech_blog_application_data_caching/ https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/4l0fv2/the_netflix_...
sanderjd 10y ago
"Systems" has come to include things like networked services (eg. HTTP and DNS servers), which you can certainly do successfully in GC'd languages in many circumstances. Personally, I'd just like to see a widely agreed upon definition, so that we can all stop being confused when this comes up.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  Naming confusion is completely normal. Even in fields like learning human anatomy you'll learn different words for some things depending on who your teacher is, even though one would think that there should have been sufficient time for such issues to settle and the professionals agree on one word. But naming always is an accident of space and time - where did it happen, when did it happen, and then the path from there. Language is dynamic and a little fuzzy - in the sciences as well. You can define all you want, the problem always is other people, who choose their own definitions. It's fun - it keeps you on your toes :-) In this context, for example, I don't see a reason for a world government to impose one definition of "systems programming" worldwide by military force (this is what it would take!). Just like in almost everything in human language, you get it from the context. You should try to teach a computer to recognize human speech including the meaning, then you'll realize that almost all of it relies on context and pre-existing knowledge. "Precision" comes from the interpretation - human language communication is the nightmare of people who love functional programming, it's full of hidden state and context and active interpretation. Which is why it's so easy for this to happen: http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 If someone wants to argue, there is no way to provide a water-tight human-language text that "Dick from the Internet" can't attack. There always is a way to mis-interpret human language.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    Thanks, this is a great response. I shall henceforth embrace the fun and swear to never again be lured by the superficial temptations of naming hegemony!
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Here is the Project Oberon source code, implemented in a GC enabled systems programming language. http://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html http://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html All the way from the hardware Verilog to the GUI. This is the 2013 re-edition of the initial project. Later versions of the operating system with its 3D Gadgets framework were quite nice to use. It doesn't get more systems programming than that.
ustolemyname 10y ago
Others don't consider languages which do not handle OS signals a "systems" language: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1368 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1368
- Jonhoo 10y ago
  Not entirely sure what you mean here? Even Bash can handle (some) OS signals, but I don't think anyone considers that a systems language?
  - ustolemyname 10y ago
    Well, maybe not Bash, but it seems a dozen years ago referring to Perl as a systems language would not have caused anybody to blink ;) I apologize for how glib my remark above was, it didn't add much to the conversation, and was more a knee jerk response to the notion that "Systems Language" is now, or ever has been, well defined. I brought up the handling of signals, because process management is, in practice, a pretty big deal in what I would consider systems programming. But I don't think it's important to all systems programming. Much like I don't think avoiding garbage collection is necessary for all systems programming, though it's clearly an issue for some applications. What I do find odd is the notion that it is necessary to not have garbage collection, but not having a solid story behind handling signals from the OS receives a pass. Rust can handle signals, but its implementation is very platform specific (even the currently recommended crate lacks Windows support), and ultimately calls out the FFI. So it seems that saying Rust has support for signals is like saying Go supports manual memory management because you can call C.malloc and C.free...
- kibwen 10y ago
  I'm unsure what this is implying. Rust is fully capable of handling signals, it just doesn't provide any nice APIs for such in the standard library.
  - SiVal 10y ago
    Is there a roadmap for what is currently planned for the standard library? A lot of language choice these days comes down to what high-quality batteries are included and what will require either trusting some unknown 3rd party's github project or your own homemade version.
otoburb 10y ago
The author wrote further down in the article under the heading "Performance Without Sacrifice": >>Unfortunately, higher-level languages are often not a great fit for systems code. Systems code is often performance critical (e.g., kernels, databases), so the developer wants predictable performance, and tight control over memory allocation/de-allocation and data layout. This can be hard to achieve in higher-level languages or when using a garbage collector.
adiabatty 10y ago
One popular, reasonable definition for "systems language" is "used for writing programs that don't have a GUI" (other than web-based ones). Another popular, reasonable definition for "systems language" is "something one could write an OS in".
- unimpressive 10y ago
  I think the latter is a more reasonable definition than the former, since I've written plenty of command line applications in python. And as much as I like python, if it qualifies as a 'system language' than just about anything does. Perhaps it could be amended "Primarily used for writing programs without a GUI."
- Jonhoo 10y ago
  I'm slightly hesitant to agree with both of these. The first seems wrong to me, because Bash qualifies, whereas Tcl doesn't. The second is better, though I think it excludes some interesting languages, like Scala, which you probably wouldn't write an operating system in, but that you could certainly build "systems" in (e.g., Spark).
- samuellb 10y ago
  I'd call a systems programming language "something which can use the low level ABI of the underlying platform". So C and e.g. FreePascal would fit the description (for most hardware platforms). And Java, for instance, would not unless the platform runs Java bytecode.
pjmlp 10y ago
Then you are ignoring all the great work done at Xerox PARC, DEC/Olivetti, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, ETHZ, AT&T, Microsoft Research which used garbage-collected system programming languages. If the whole OS stack can be implemented in the language, ignoring the Assembly help that even C requires, it is a systems language regardless if it has a GC for heap management or not.
- adrusi 10y ago
  By that criteria neither Go nor Python can be considered systems languages. Maybe you could implement some basic code to bootstrap CPython in Cython or RPython, I'm not entirely sure, but neither of those are really Python. The only garbage collected languages that I'm aware of that can implement a full OS stack are LISP, Red and maybe Smalltalk.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I wonder why you are disqualifying Go, given that it is fully boostraped as of version 1.6, yes even the GC is written in Go. It is also a descendant of Oberon, which was used very much successfully at ETHZ during the 90's. Every time I have this argument I wish some PhD student bothers to rewrite Native Oberon in Go. Also you should educate yourself, a small list of GC enabled systems programming language is: Lisp, Algol-68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Sing#, SystemC#, D. There are plenty of ACM, SIGPLAN, digital archive papers from the OS written in those languages.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    As pjmlp says, Oberon systems were implemented in a GC language. The latest, A2 Bluebottle, runs fast and light despite being written in a safe, GC, system language. Easily more responsive than my Linux box. There's also GC's that can support latencies good enough for soft, resl-time applications. Far as Go, it's designed to recreate the Oberon-2 experience of Pike. It's basically a modified Oberon. If Oberon can do OS's, then Go can do OS's with some modifications to runtime or something.
accnumnplusone 10y ago
This discussion keeps coming up in the Go world. As with many words "systems" has multiple uses eg operating systems and enterprise systems. I don't understand the confusion.

I'd like to know what the author considers "systems work"; I don't consider garbage-collected languages (Go, Python) "systems" languages.

by joobus 10y ago

I'd like to know what the author considers "systems work"; I don't consider garbage-collected languages (Go, Python) "systems" languages.

adamnemecek 10y ago

You are probably referring to the sentence "Rust is quickly becoming my favorite language for all systems work (which is most of what I do anyway), and has largely replaced both Go, Python, and C/C++ in my day-to-day." One could also interpret is as "Rust is quickly becoming my favorite language for all systems work [...], and has __also__ largely replaced both Go, Python, and C/C++ in my day-to-day."

Jonhoo 10y ago
That is indeed how I meant it. That said, Go is certainly being used as a systems language, and especially in the domain of networked services, it is rapidly replacing C/C++.
- Scarbutt 10y ago
  replacing python is a bit of stretch no? I'm sure you can, but is it practical? like for quickly hacking stuff up.
  - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
    I find getting stuff up and running with Go is quite easy. Just set up a small package with some quick hacks and then a separate file to run the package functions.
  - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
    I find getting stuff up and running with Go is quite easy. Just set up a small package with some quick hacks and then a separate file to run the package functions.
  - Jonhoo 10y ago
    Actually, no. I've found that I'm maybe even more productive in Rust than I am in Python, even for one-off tasks. The one exception is probably plotting, but I'm sure a Rust library for that isn't far off.
    - Scarbutt 10y ago
      Impressive, I'll have to check it out :)
    - jhasse 10y ago
      What's your replacement for Python REPLs like bpython or ptpython?
      - Jonhoo 10y ago
        I barely, if ever, use/need a REPL. The shell has all the tools I need for short, one-off tasks.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Once upon a time I used Python for systems administration tasks and that was a long time ago, around 2003. Python doesn't offer much against languages that compile to native code, have type inference (if strong typed) and REPL. The only reason for me, would be if I am required to make use of a framework or library that requires me to use Python.
  - lmm 10y ago
    I use Scala for that kind of use case sometimes. If you have a REPL and you have good enough type inference you can pretty much just do what you would do in Python, and as a bonus you can reuse library functions from your real system rather than having to duplicate or shell out to them from your scripts
- jguegant 10y ago
  "and especially in the domain of networked services, it is rapidly replacing C/C++." Rapidly? Where?
  - Jonhoo 10y ago
    I don't have any numbers to support this claim, but it's certainly true that we are seeing a lot of software being developed in Go, and network software in particular.
  - ngrilly 10y ago
    Examples of services that typically would have been written in C/C++ but are written in Go: Docker, YouTube Vitess (a MySQL proxy), CockroachDB (a distributed and strongly consistent SQL database). Other examples of companies using Go for network services: Dropbox (most backend), CloudFlare (Railgun and other things), Uber (geofencing), Bitly (messaging with NSQ), Disqus (realtime commenting), DigitalOcean, Heroku, SoundCloud, Dailymotion.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Thanks to the adoption of Docker, Dropbox and other well known SV companies. Even Microsoft is now contributing to the eco-system due to their collaboration with Docker. Also Joe Duffy (from MSR Midori) tweets about his Go experiences. Personally I prefer other languages, but I am surely happy to see more Go and less unsafe languages being used.
    - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
      Go also has the advantage of a simple syntax like Python. Moving some of our ETL processes to Go from Python has been quite easy.
  - ngrilly 10y ago
    There is also Netflix using it for a proxy: > The decision to use Go was deliberate, because we needed something that had lower latency than Java (where garbage collection pauses are an issue) and is more productive for developers than C, while also handling tens of thousands of client connections. Go fits this space well. Source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/05/application-data-caching-using-ssds.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/05/application-data-caching... Discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/4l0fv2/the_netflix_tech_blog_application_data_caching/ https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/4l0fv2/the_netflix_...

sanderjd 10y ago

"Systems" has come to include things like networked services (eg. HTTP and DNS servers), which you can certainly do successfully in GC'd languages in many circumstances. Personally, I'd just like to see a widely agreed upon definition, so that we can all stop being confused when this comes up.

LionessLover 10y ago
Naming confusion is completely normal. Even in fields like learning human anatomy you'll learn different words for some things depending on who your teacher is, even though one would think that there should have been sufficient time for such issues to settle and the professionals agree on one word. But naming always is an accident of space and time - where did it happen, when did it happen, and then the path from there. Language is dynamic and a little fuzzy - in the sciences as well. You can define all you want, the problem always is other people, who choose their own definitions. It's fun - it keeps you on your toes :-) In this context, for example, I don't see a reason for a world government to impose one definition of "systems programming" worldwide by military force (this is what it would take!). Just like in almost everything in human language, you get it from the context. You should try to teach a computer to recognize human speech including the meaning, then you'll realize that almost all of it relies on context and pre-existing knowledge. "Precision" comes from the interpretation - human language communication is the nightmare of people who love functional programming, it's full of hidden state and context and active interpretation. Which is why it's so easy for this to happen: http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 If someone wants to argue, there is no way to provide a water-tight human-language text that "Dick from the Internet" can't attack. There always is a way to mis-interpret human language.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Thanks, this is a great response. I shall henceforth embrace the fun and swear to never again be lured by the superficial temptations of naming hegemony!
pjmlp 10y ago
Here is the Project Oberon source code, implemented in a GC enabled systems programming language. http://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html http://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html All the way from the hardware Verilog to the GUI. This is the 2013 re-edition of the initial project. Later versions of the operating system with its 3D Gadgets framework were quite nice to use. It doesn't get more systems programming than that.

ustolemyname 10y ago

Others don't consider languages which do not handle OS signals a "systems" language: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1368 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1368

Jonhoo 10y ago
Not entirely sure what you mean here? Even Bash can handle (some) OS signals, but I don't think anyone considers that a systems language?
- ustolemyname 10y ago
  Well, maybe not Bash, but it seems a dozen years ago referring to Perl as a systems language would not have caused anybody to blink ;) I apologize for how glib my remark above was, it didn't add much to the conversation, and was more a knee jerk response to the notion that "Systems Language" is now, or ever has been, well defined. I brought up the handling of signals, because process management is, in practice, a pretty big deal in what I would consider systems programming. But I don't think it's important to all systems programming. Much like I don't think avoiding garbage collection is necessary for all systems programming, though it's clearly an issue for some applications. What I do find odd is the notion that it is necessary to not have garbage collection, but not having a solid story behind handling signals from the OS receives a pass. Rust can handle signals, but its implementation is very platform specific (even the currently recommended crate lacks Windows support), and ultimately calls out the FFI. So it seems that saying Rust has support for signals is like saying Go supports manual memory management because you can call C.malloc and C.free...
kibwen 10y ago
I'm unsure what this is implying. Rust is fully capable of handling signals, it just doesn't provide any nice APIs for such in the standard library.
- SiVal 10y ago
  Is there a roadmap for what is currently planned for the standard library? A lot of language choice these days comes down to what high-quality batteries are included and what will require either trusting some unknown 3rd party's github project or your own homemade version.

otoburb 10y ago

The author wrote further down in the article under the heading "Performance Without Sacrifice": >>Unfortunately, higher-level languages are often not a great fit for systems code. Systems code is often performance critical (e.g., kernels, databases), so the developer wants predictable performance, and tight control over memory allocation/de-allocation and data layout. This can be hard to achieve in higher-level languages or when using a garbage collector.

adiabatty 10y ago

One popular, reasonable definition for "systems language" is "used for writing programs that don't have a GUI" (other than web-based ones). Another popular, reasonable definition for "systems language" is "something one could write an OS in".

unimpressive 10y ago
I think the latter is a more reasonable definition than the former, since I've written plenty of command line applications in python. And as much as I like python, if it qualifies as a 'system language' than just about anything does. Perhaps it could be amended "Primarily used for writing programs without a GUI."
Jonhoo 10y ago
I'm slightly hesitant to agree with both of these. The first seems wrong to me, because Bash qualifies, whereas Tcl doesn't. The second is better, though I think it excludes some interesting languages, like Scala, which you probably wouldn't write an operating system in, but that you could certainly build "systems" in (e.g., Spark).
samuellb 10y ago
I'd call a systems programming language "something which can use the low level ABI of the underlying platform". So C and e.g. FreePascal would fit the description (for most hardware platforms). And Java, for instance, would not unless the platform runs Java bytecode.

pjmlp 10y ago

Then you are ignoring all the great work done at Xerox PARC, DEC/Olivetti, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, ETHZ, AT&T, Microsoft Research which used garbage-collected system programming languages. If the whole OS stack can be implemented in the language, ignoring the Assembly help that even C requires, it is a systems language regardless if it has a GC for heap management or not.

adrusi 10y ago
By that criteria neither Go nor Python can be considered systems languages. Maybe you could implement some basic code to bootstrap CPython in Cython or RPython, I'm not entirely sure, but neither of those are really Python. The only garbage collected languages that I'm aware of that can implement a full OS stack are LISP, Red and maybe Smalltalk.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I wonder why you are disqualifying Go, given that it is fully boostraped as of version 1.6, yes even the GC is written in Go. It is also a descendant of Oberon, which was used very much successfully at ETHZ during the 90's. Every time I have this argument I wish some PhD student bothers to rewrite Native Oberon in Go. Also you should educate yourself, a small list of GC enabled systems programming language is: Lisp, Algol-68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Sing#, SystemC#, D. There are plenty of ACM, SIGPLAN, digital archive papers from the OS written in those languages.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  As pjmlp says, Oberon systems were implemented in a GC language. The latest, A2 Bluebottle, runs fast and light despite being written in a safe, GC, system language. Easily more responsive than my Linux box. There's also GC's that can support latencies good enough for soft, resl-time applications. Far as Go, it's designed to recreate the Oberon-2 experience of Pike. It's basically a modified Oberon. If Oberon can do OS's, then Go can do OS's with some modifications to runtime or something.

accnumnplusone 10y ago

This discussion keeps coming up in the Go world. As with many words "systems" has multiple uses eg operating systems and enterprise systems. I don't understand the confusion.