Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
General Development "For years I've tried my damnedest to get away from C. Too simple, too many details to manage, too old and crufty, too low level. I've had intense and torrid love affairs with Java, C++, and Erlang. I've built things I'm proud of with all of them, and yet each has broken my heart. They've made promises they couldn't keep, created cultures that focus on the wrong things, and made devastating tradeoffs that eventually make you suffer painfully. And I keep crawling back to C."
Thread beginning with comment 548627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: C -> Go
by Valhalla on Sun 13th Jan 2013 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: C -> Go"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


System programming languages success are bound to the success of a specific operating system. There is yet to exist a system programming language that becomes successful without being sold by an OS vendor.

But that doesn't preclude the existance of verifiable benchmarks showing the performance compared to these established operating systems.

If someone were to present such benchmarks for their research operating system then the industry would take great note. I have yet to come across any such benchmarks, can you point me to any?

Obviously these research OS's are being continously benchmarked by their creators against established operating systems, and if they had something impressive to report performance-wise in those comparisons I'm certain they would be shouting it from the rooftops, research grants and all that.

First with Singularity, then with the still secret Midori that no one outside Microsoft Research really knows what it is about.

Singularity saw no commercial potential and was passed off to academia, and 'then with the still secret Midori that no one outside Microsoft Research really knows what it is about' means absolutely nothing in the context of this discussion, it could be anything.


As mentioned, at BUILD there was a comment about Windows code being migrated from C to C++, but no details were given if it is pure C++ or C++/CX.

Microsoft's migration from C to C++ has been going on for quite some time as far as I know, hardly surprising as C is in a state of limbo in their toolchains. That doesn't mean they are shifting to being garbage collected.

So we keep using what works and most important sells computers, hence inertia.

There's a difference between using what works and where you actually put your continued efforts. I've seen no indication that efforts are being routed away from the traditional kernel/operating system towards some new shiny safe memory based solution.

Simply because when push comes to shove, they will be slower than the current solutions (unless they can somehow perform magic), and the current solutions are working very well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, future will tell either way but seriously I've been hearing (the same?) people making your kind of claims for the past 10 years or so, those baby steps must be really small indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: C -> Go
by moondevil on Mon 14th Jan 2013 00:10 in reply to "RE[11]: C -> Go"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Here are some benchmarks of the current state of affairs on Sigularity in case you don't know it:

http://esl.epitech.eu/~arnaud/@lsd/l/016%20An%20Overview~*~...

Performance discussion starts on Page 30.

For A2 (Blue Bottle) I cannot find a paper now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, future will tell either way but seriously I've been hearing (the same?) people making your kind of claims for the past 10 years or so, those baby steps must be really small indeed.


Sure, I am betting that this will eventually happen. Lets see what the future brings.

Reply Parent Score: 2