Torvalds has indeed chimed in on the micro vs. monolithic kernel debate. Going all 1992, he says: "The whole 'microkernels are simpler' argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow 'more secure' or 'more stable' is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make
the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can 'just reload' a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed." My take: While I am not qualified to reply to Linus, there is one thing I want to say: just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-09
Member since:2006-03-20
You may mock signal-based programming, but why don't you try writing some examples yourself in an imaginary language and see the benefits? application writing becomes much easier with signal-based programming.
I admit the guys at rebelscience.org are a little over-the-top concerning the rest of their stuff, but I can not say that they haven't hit the nail in the head with the signal-based programming model.
Member since:2005-07-11
Where can I find more on this technique?
Why an imaginary language? Is it natural and easy to do in standard languages like C or even Object Oriented languages like C++, Python or Ruby without having to follow difficult to follow rules etc?
Is there a language out there that does this naturally if it is so greatly advantageous to program that way?
Member since:2006-02-15
I admit the guys at rebelscience.org are a little over-the-top concerning the rest of their stuff, but I can not say that they haven't hit the nail in the head with the signal-based programming model.
I can. They've made the same mistake Brad Cox made when he invented objective-C. Software is not like hardware for a lot of reasons.
But here's a typical comment from the rebelscience site:
Unfortunately for the world, it did not occur to early computer scientists that a program is, at its core, a tightly integrated collection of communicating entities interacting with each other and with their environment. As a result, the computer industry had no choice but to embrace a method of software construction that sees the computer simply as a tool for the execution of instruction sequences.
I suggest the author read Minsky's early work. "signal-based" programming is the Nth in an infinite series of attempts to model the asynchronous processes that make up software as if they were synchronous. It is doomed to the same failure of all such attempts.
The closest anyone's gotten to a workable synchronous model was Tony Hoare, with Communicating Sequential Processes. (CSP).
Member since:
2006-03-23
ROTFL.
So why wasn't this:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm
accomplished anything?
Freaking washed-up, rehashed, neural network AI people.
pffft.
The best quote:
"What follows is a list of prominent individuals that I consider to be the real enemies of reliable software even though they all profess otherwise. These people are doing the computer industry and the world a great disservice. They are using their positions of authority to perpetuate a myth, and a very harmful myth at that. They have built a personality cult around [Frederick] Brooks and his fallacious doctrine just as they have done with Alan Turing over the years."
well, gee, the damn Turing guy and his machines. If it wasn't for him, all our software would rock!