3 ms·
It's a matter of getting good at it and that takes time and effort, but the end result is far better than not getting good at it and using a more automated, hig
by khitchdee 8y ago
It's a matter of getting good at it and that takes time and effort, but the end result is far better than not getting good at it and using a more automated, higher level lanuggae to take the easy way out
- pjmlp 8y agoIf not even Linux kernel developers with their merge review process and stress tooling are good at it, what to say of the more mundane developer... https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.html?vendor_id=33 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.htm... http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/ http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/
- khitchdee 8y agoSome people develop good coding techniques, like Donald Knuth. If you're new, you set out on your own or read up on what they've done or get lucky and work with a good programmer. That's how you pick it up. But, it's all pedal to the metal. Knuth's entire work is for C. Nowadays, everything is done at a high level using some kind of pre-existing framework and the type of code being written is cookie-cutter so none of this applies. Swift belongs to this new age trend in coding,
- pjmlp 8y agoSo you are stating no one on Linux kernel development is a match to Donald Knuth, and given the CVE track record they should improve themselves to Donald Knuth level. If there is anything new about Swift, it is a return to the past of proper programming languages. "Oh, it was quite a while ago. I kind of stopped when C came out. That was a big blow. We were making so much good progress on optimizations and transformations. We were getting rid of just one nice problem after another. When C came out, at one of the SIGPLAN compiler conferences, there was a debate between Steve Johnson from Bell Labs, who was supporting C, and one of our people, Bill Harrison, who was working on a project that I had at that time supporting automatic optimization...The nubbin of the debate was Steve's defense of not having to build optimizers anymore because the programmer would take care of it. That it was really a programmer's issue.... Seibel: Do you think C is a reasonable language if they had restricted its use to operating-system kernels? Allen: Oh, yeah. That would have been fine. And, in fact, you need to have something like that, something where experts can really fine-tune without big bottlenecks because those are key problems to solve. By 1960, we had a long list of amazing languages: Lisp, APL, Fortran, COBOL, Algol 60. These are higher-level than C. We have seriously regressed, since C developed. C has destroyed our ability to advance the state of the art in automatic optimization, automatic parallelization, automatic mapping of a high-level language to the machine. This is one of the reasons compilers are ... basically not taught much anymore in the colleges and universities." -- Fran Allen interview, Excerpted from: Peter Seibel. Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming
- khitchdee 8y agoI'm not trying to glorify Knuth or downgrade Linux kernel developers. I'm only saying that you can leanr a lot from a good programmer, and an apprentice type arrangement is probably the best way to learn programming and we need more of that than new languages