3 ms·
> Fil-C shows this can be solved at the software layer for things in this category that can afford the overhead of a GC. Mainline clang and g++ are also gettin
by musicale 1y ago
> Fil-C shows this can be solved at the software layer for things in this category that can afford the overhead of a GC.
Mainline clang and g++ are also getting better with things like -fbounds-safety and -fsanitize=address. As I understand it, they typically have some overhead, but I'm willing to accept that overhead to have a kernel, web browser, etc. without memory errors. The decision that memory safety is too costly seems to have been made when CPUs were orders of magnitude slower than they are today. Hopefully hardware support will reduce the overhead to negligible proportions and enable memory safety as a default rather than an esoteric add-on or proprietary feature.
- pjmlp 1y agoNah, it was only a UNIX thing and C, see the world of systems languages and OS written in them outside Bell Labs. Had UNIX and C a price tag on their source code comparable to the competition, instead of a symbolic price and an annotated source code book, history would have played a different music.
- musicale 1y agoWhat competing OSes/languages do you think might have/should have surpassed Unix and C?
- pjmlp 1y agoVMS could have been one, for example. PL/I variants were being widely used, Apple was a Pascal fan, and is the company that actually created Object Pascal, not Borland. Modula-2 was around as well, unfortunely without an OS to go to market alongside it. The real question is, all things on equal footing regarding price, without access to source code to just type in/copy, what operating systems would people be willing to pay for.