Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
OSNews, Generic OSes 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.
Thread beginning with comment 123253
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"The best way to obtain software quality is to put the right tools for the job in the hands of open-minded people."

This is the often repeated argument from people who are used to think in terms of the only software model they know, the algorithmic model: multiple tools for different jobs. This is precisely why algorithmic programming is flawed. It demands a plularity of tools, hence the current mess.

I use the argument because of analogy to other tool usages. Amazingly enough, in carpentry, not all fasteners are nails, and the hammer is the wrong tool for inserting screws.

I've used both imperative and declarative languages. For some jobs, imperative languages are the best tool, and those seem to be the majority of problems. For others, I prefer declarative languages. There are even times when functional programming makes sense. That's just one of many dimensions in language choice.

The "true nature" of computing is not merely about communication. It is also about command and control, algorithmic transformation, and randomness.

By throwing out the algorithmic part, you throw out the mathematical foundation of symbolic manipulation. You may wish to live in a world with mathematics, but I do not.

Reply Parent Score: 3