PowerNex: a kernel written in the D Programming Language

Post by yawniek » Fri, Jun 24, 2016, 8:08 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #25

FraaJad wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be very sure about the claim that "D can never compete with Rust in performance and real-time or soft-real-time systems" . If anything, due to much better metaprogramming (as you mention), you can have D programs that ARE faster than Rust (eg: see JSON parsing benchmark [1]). You can write programs in D that have ZERO garbage collection. In fact, the core libraries (phobos) are being actively rewritten to…

The D "fastjson" version is not a general solution: > I think it is not necessary to validate data you are not using. So basically > I only scan them so much as to find where they end. Granted it is a bit of > optimization for a benchmark, but is actually handy in real-life as well. > After all you could still raise the validation level to maximum if you really > cared or call one of the validation functions. https:/…

Post by gravypod » Fri, Jun 24, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #33

gravypod wrote: post #2

What's the kernel design here? Is it monolithic like linux?

I love how everyone is digging into the D/Rust/C++ flamewar and not discussing the project at hand. It appears monolithic. There's actually very little content about what it's design goals are, what it's trying to accomplish, or even what interfaces it'll support. I'm assuming POSIX because everyone loves to re-write UNIX and there is a boat load of documentation/implementations and most of these are monolithic.

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 24, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

dikaiosune wrote: post #20

PeCaN wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a valid question. They're pretty different languages in terms of design, but they're definitely worth comparing—their problem domains do overlap in spite of design differences. I've used both, but can't claim to be much of an expert in either. Similarities: • Compile to fast, easy-to-deploy native code • Abstraction continuum ranging from very low-level C-like style to a high-level more functional sty…

> it means with Rust you will spend more time thinking about memory ownership and other important-but-eliminated-by-GC concerns. Both are easier to deal with than C or C++. I think an important wrinkle here is that Rust's ownership model helps prevent many runtime-errors other than memory safety. I'm not sure how D handles problems like iterator invalidation, but I've found it really nice to always know what's able t…

Post by Wild » Fri, Jun 24, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

Post by Wild » Fri, Jun 24, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #33

gravypod wrote: post #2

What's the kernel design here? Is it monolithic like linux?

I love how everyone is digging into the D/Rust/C++ flamewar and not discussing the project at hand. It appears monolithic. There's actually very little content about what it's design goals are, what it's trying to accomplish, or even what interfaces it'll support. I'm assuming POSIX because everyone loves to re-write UNIX and there is a boat load of documentation/implementations and most of these are monolithic.