3 ms·

this is a narrow and arbitrary definition of "systems programming". you seem to be describing something closer to hard realtime computing, which is not the sam

by abiox 9y ago

this is a narrow and arbitrary definition of "systems programming". you seem to be describing something closer to hard realtime computing, which is not the same thing.

dboreham 9y ago
Seriously? He's using the term in exactly the way everyone uses it, even Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming
- abiox 9y ago
  if you read your link, even the wikipedia article authors do not restrict the notion to hard realtime computing. it's not really how "everyone" uses it. it's a narrowing that a subset of vocal people have been trying to push, i can only presume for ideological purposes.
vvanders 9y ago
That's one aspect, the other is targets with small(<10mb) footprints where GC falls over spectacularly when you don't have 2x your working set of free memory. These aren't uncommon targets, the PSP traditionally had 8mb of system memory. Lots of embedded routers and "IoT" things, etc. Part of this is confused by everyone having a different definition of "System Programming". In my view if there's a target where hardware constrains prevent suitable performance from a language then that language isn't fit to be considered a "System Programming" language.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  A systems programming language is any language usable to write a full OS with it. http://www.projectoberon.com http://www.projectoberon.com The only thing that Go lacks in regards to Oberon are a few intrisics in the unsafe package, easily doable in Assembly, just like ANSI C requires on its libc for bare metal programming.
  - lodi 9y ago
    By that definition Haskell is a systems programming language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(operating_system)
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Of course. C gets put into a pedestal, yet it is impossible to write an OS in pure ANSI C, without making use of language extensions or Assembly.

by abiox 9y ago

this is a narrow and arbitrary definition of "systems programming". you seem to be describing something closer to hard realtime computing, which is not the same thing.

dboreham 9y ago

Seriously? He's using the term in exactly the way everyone uses it, even Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming

abiox 9y ago
if you read your link, even the wikipedia article authors do not restrict the notion to hard realtime computing. it's not really how "everyone" uses it. it's a narrowing that a subset of vocal people have been trying to push, i can only presume for ideological purposes.

vvanders 9y ago

That's one aspect, the other is targets with small(<10mb) footprints where GC falls over spectacularly when you don't have 2x your working set of free memory. These aren't uncommon targets, the PSP traditionally had 8mb of system memory. Lots of embedded routers and "IoT" things, etc. Part of this is confused by everyone having a different definition of "System Programming". In my view if there's a target where hardware constrains prevent suitable performance from a language then that language isn't fit to be considered a "System Programming" language.

pjmlp 9y ago
A systems programming language is any language usable to write a full OS with it. http://www.projectoberon.com http://www.projectoberon.com The only thing that Go lacks in regards to Oberon are a few intrisics in the unsafe package, easily doable in Assembly, just like ANSI C requires on its libc for bare metal programming.
- lodi 9y ago
  By that definition Haskell is a systems programming language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(operating_system)
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Of course. C gets put into a pedestal, yet it is impossible to write an OS in pure ANSI C, without making use of language extensions or Assembly.