Posix Abstractions in Modern Operating Systems: The Old, the New, the Missing [pdf]

Post by ktRolster » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

stepvhen wrote: post #23

Blackthorn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft PowerShell does this, and it's pretty neat. Of course it's less popular than bash so now they're bringing bash and text-based pipes onto Windows! Ergh.

Bash + coreutils is powerful. Putting that on windows is a very good thing. The "performance increase" is irrelevant compared to the ease of use, available documentation (man pages), interoperability, and maturity.

Post by gaius » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #38

gaius wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. They both have the resources (money, engineers) to do alot in-house, and the market share that vendors will support them specifically. They can't not do this, they are under the same commercial pressure as other OS vendors. If you want proof, just look at the systemd fiasco. Red Hat's way or the highway.

> If you want proof, just look at the systemd fiasco. Red Hat's way or the highway. What kind of proof is this? systemd is the new standard across all major distros (except for stuff like Gentoo or Slackware, which is irrelevant in the targeted enterprise market anyway). And in the process, systemd steam-rolled over lots and lots of bizarre inconsistencies between distros. If that's Red Hat's version of EEE, I'm very…

Post by digi_owl » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #41

zvrba wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OOP approach means that my process needs to know how to communicate with other processes via very specific protocols, which aren't very well defined (any process could describe its type of object). That's why we have IDL -- interface description language for RPC calls. An IDL-to-X (usually C) compiler generates the necessary glue so that anybody can talk to the program in question. IDL is also the basis of MS COM,…

> So you teach grep to take an IDL file, invoke an IDL compiler and dynamically load the parser for the protocol in question. Also, if the broker were a standardized, perhaps in-kernel component (dbus, kdbus), you could attach "idlgrep" to any process to trace its calls. So you introduce a huge load of accidental complexity because the text interface has some perceived inefficiency? I'll choose simplicity and accessi…

Post by eru » Mon, May 09, 2016, 12:39 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #24

eru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does binary vs text have to do with object orientation?

It doesn't, but it gets around the extra overhead you get with the added metadata. OO on its own is slower to parse than plain text, but binary is faster to parse than plain text. If you combine the both can you get the best of both words, something that's both reliable and fast.

Post by lisivka » Mon, May 09, 2016, 8:26 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #21

lisivka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is already invented by ASCII.

No it's not. ASCII doesn't give you enough metadata to permit for efficient and reliable parsing of data, you can do a lot better without using ASCII.