3 ms·

It seems most people don't really understand the core of systems programming. Let me try to summarize: There can be no limitations of any kind in terms of expre

by batista 15y ago

It seems most people don't really understand the core of systems programming. Let me try to summarize: There can be no limitations of any kind in terms of expressing to the machine, precisely how the machine should behave. Period. No ifs-ands-or-buts about it. Actually it seems you don't understand that people mean different thing by "system's programming". Not all system programming is about no-compromise, i.e as it would if it was only about driver or OS coding. I'd trust Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to understand what system programming is better than some random dude on HN.

heretohelp 15y ago
>I'd trust Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to understand what system programming is better than some random dude on HN. You'd be surprised, Pike has more or less retracted the "systems" moniker due to the reaction it got. He avoids the term now as a result. I know this because I've been watching Go itself very closely. But hey, it's just Rob Pike. Maybe ken still calls it a "systems" language. I'm still just a random dude on HN who thought plan9 was a fantastic idea and keeps track of Pike's work as a result :)
jacquesm 15y ago
Chances with these 'random dudes on HN' are that they actually know a thing or two, I'd hate to make any assumptions there. As for your 'what people mean by systems programming', how about you both stick to the definition/description used here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming That would make it much easier to communicate. From the looks of it systems programming is all about no compromise, specifically for the reasons outlined by the GP. Now I wouldn't know him from Adam but even outside the realm of driver and OS programming there is plenty of room for software that is 100% deterministic in terms of time and space consumed. Note that the 'alternate usage' term in the page linked above was specifically not what the GP was talking about if I understood it correctly.
- heretohelp 15y ago
  You have it right and seems to understand systems programming and the consequences of the necessities underlying it perfectly.

by batista 15y ago

heretohelp 15y ago

>I'd trust Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to understand what system programming is better than some random dude on HN. You'd be surprised, Pike has more or less retracted the "systems" moniker due to the reaction it got. He avoids the term now as a result. I know this because I've been watching Go itself very closely. But hey, it's just Rob Pike. Maybe ken still calls it a "systems" language. I'm still just a random dude on HN who thought plan9 was a fantastic idea and keeps track of Pike's work as a result :)

jacquesm 15y ago

Chances with these 'random dudes on HN' are that they actually know a thing or two, I'd hate to make any assumptions there. As for your 'what people mean by systems programming', how about you both stick to the definition/description used here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming That would make it much easier to communicate. From the looks of it systems programming is all about no compromise, specifically for the reasons outlined by the GP. Now I wouldn't know him from Adam but even outside the realm of driver and OS programming there is plenty of room for software that is 100% deterministic in terms of time and space consumed. Note that the 'alternate usage' term in the page linked above was specifically not what the GP was talking about if I understood it correctly.

heretohelp 15y ago
You have it right and seems to understand systems programming and the consequences of the necessities underlying it perfectly.