5 ms·

Yes, that is okay. There is little you could say on this that would be convincing given the every action of Microsoft, Google, and ranks of proven, competent de

Yes, that is okay. There is little you could say on this that would be convincing given the every action of Microsoft, Google, and ranks of proven, competent developers who are building so-called low-level systems that power the world. I concur that it would be a "waste of time".

pjmlp 5y ago
After all, I am willing to waste some minutes with you. Since IBM i, IBM z, Unisys ClearPath exist, and power the world of insurances and finance, this sentence is obviously false. > Google didn't write Fuchsia in Go Indeed, only the TCP/IP stack and volume management tooling, should be easy for you to find out about them. Then there is this thing called gVisor, it is powering parts of the world that run on top of Google Kubernetes Engine. Maybe something there for you to learn as well. > Microsoft uses somewhere approximating 0% .NET/C# code in the Windows core On the NT kernel, yes, yet good luck using Windows only with the kernel, without the remaining layers, many of which developed in a mix of COM and .NET. A basic proof how much Windows systems programming experience you have. Ah then there is this thing called IoT Edge runtime for intelligent devices, written in a mix of Rust and C#. And before I forget, NVIDIA DRIVE AGX firmware is written in Ada/SPARK. Bye and learn to grow beyond the Linux bubble.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Not only did Google not write Fucshia in Go, they explicitly made it a forbidden language (listing a litany of reasons to exclude it and any other GC language -- the same reasons that apply to most "low-level" code), they set a goal to migrate any parts imported in. Maybe not the best example. "A basic proof how much Windows systems programming experience you have." Which programming language would one write "COM" in? I am so poorly skilled that I must have missed that language. I spent a decade+ writing Windows code, including exposing it through COM/COM+/DCOM, but apparently I was doing it wrong. And while there is loads of C++ in what we consider the Windows platform, there is vanishingly little .NET. The "Linux bubble" comment is especially weird. I spend my day in macOS, with most of my day being in XCode slinging Swift and GoLand spinning Go. Somehow I can evaluate the world without trying to mangle it to fit whatever my current primary skills are.
  - exdsq 5y ago
    I don't really follow what you two are arguing about - I think it's pretty clear you can in theory write systems-level programs in most of those languages. However if the focus is on Operating Systems, there have been a few formally verified OS's written in Ada/Spark that are worth looking at (if I correctly read these posts as saying that's not possible).
    - defaultname 5y ago
      It's kind of all over the place. The initial point is simply that Go or C# or Java in their normal form aren't "system programming" suitable (which generally means low-level kernels and system services and projects having similar needs. Notepad on Windows isn't system programming), and it's unrealistic for Go to be ranked highly on such a list, much less before Rust which is purpose built for this task. Could someone use them for system programming? Sure they could. It would be the wrong tool but people makes loads of bad decisions. The point about Linux and other operating system choices wasn't a rule, it was an observation that the rhetoric often plied on developer boards -- usually where developers want everything to be a nail to their skillset hammer -- has little correlation with the world. Nowhere did I exclude Ada or any other compiled, non-GCd (which Ada never uses when used for anything of any criticality) languages. Anything can make just as good of native code.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    > Not only did Google not write Fucshia in Go, they explicitly made it a forbidden language It's more correct to say that they attempted to write part of Fuchsia in Go, but the results performed so badly that they decided it would need to be rewritten in another language. Just as Microsoft once made a good faith effort to rewrite Windows in C# (Longhorn) before that effort had to be abandoned.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Longhorn failed due to sabotage from Windows team due to the usual WinDev vs DevDiv politics, hence why since Vista all Longhorn ideas have been redone in COM, and COM followed by WinRT (COM + IInspectable + TLB replaced with .NET metadata). Midori had no issues powering Asian Bing servers during its life in production.

pjmlp 5y ago

After all, I am willing to waste some minutes with you. Since IBM i, IBM z, Unisys ClearPath exist, and power the world of insurances and finance, this sentence is obviously false. > Google didn't write Fuchsia in Go Indeed, only the TCP/IP stack and volume management tooling, should be easy for you to find out about them. Then there is this thing called gVisor, it is powering parts of the world that run on top of Google Kubernetes Engine. Maybe something there for you to learn as well. > Microsoft uses somewhere approximating 0% .NET/C# code in the Windows core On the NT kernel, yes, yet good luck using Windows only with the kernel, without the remaining layers, many of which developed in a mix of COM and .NET. A basic proof how much Windows systems programming experience you have. Ah then there is this thing called IoT Edge runtime for intelligent devices, written in a mix of Rust and C#. And before I forget, NVIDIA DRIVE AGX firmware is written in Ada/SPARK. Bye and learn to grow beyond the Linux bubble.

defaultname 5y ago
Not only did Google not write Fucshia in Go, they explicitly made it a forbidden language (listing a litany of reasons to exclude it and any other GC language -- the same reasons that apply to most "low-level" code), they set a goal to migrate any parts imported in. Maybe not the best example. "A basic proof how much Windows systems programming experience you have." Which programming language would one write "COM" in? I am so poorly skilled that I must have missed that language. I spent a decade+ writing Windows code, including exposing it through COM/COM+/DCOM, but apparently I was doing it wrong. And while there is loads of C++ in what we consider the Windows platform, there is vanishingly little .NET. The "Linux bubble" comment is especially weird. I spend my day in macOS, with most of my day being in XCode slinging Swift and GoLand spinning Go. Somehow I can evaluate the world without trying to mangle it to fit whatever my current primary skills are.
- exdsq 5y ago
  I don't really follow what you two are arguing about - I think it's pretty clear you can in theory write systems-level programs in most of those languages. However if the focus is on Operating Systems, there have been a few formally verified OS's written in Ada/Spark that are worth looking at (if I correctly read these posts as saying that's not possible).
  - defaultname 5y ago
    It's kind of all over the place. The initial point is simply that Go or C# or Java in their normal form aren't "system programming" suitable (which generally means low-level kernels and system services and projects having similar needs. Notepad on Windows isn't system programming), and it's unrealistic for Go to be ranked highly on such a list, much less before Rust which is purpose built for this task. Could someone use them for system programming? Sure they could. It would be the wrong tool but people makes loads of bad decisions. The point about Linux and other operating system choices wasn't a rule, it was an observation that the rhetoric often plied on developer boards -- usually where developers want everything to be a nail to their skillset hammer -- has little correlation with the world. Nowhere did I exclude Ada or any other compiled, non-GCd (which Ada never uses when used for anything of any criticality) languages. Anything can make just as good of native code.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  > Not only did Google not write Fucshia in Go, they explicitly made it a forbidden language It's more correct to say that they attempted to write part of Fuchsia in Go, but the results performed so badly that they decided it would need to be rewritten in another language. Just as Microsoft once made a good faith effort to rewrite Windows in C# (Longhorn) before that effort had to be abandoned.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Longhorn failed due to sabotage from Windows team due to the usual WinDev vs DevDiv politics, hence why since Vista all Longhorn ideas have been redone in COM, and COM followed by WinRT (COM + IInspectable + TLB replaced with .NET metadata). Midori had no issues powering Asian Bing servers during its life in production.