From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 22 03:10:57 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C723C2DF for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 03:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fly.hiwaay.net (fly.hiwaay.net [216.180.54.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9267229BC for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 03:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kabini1.local (rbn1-216-180-19-64.adsl.hiwaay.net [216.180.19.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by fly.hiwaay.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/fly) with ESMTP id sBM3At62029777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:10:56 -0600 Message-ID: <54978D36.4010502@hiwaay.net> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:17:10 -0600 From: "William A. Mahaffey III" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: posix has been rendered useless, isn't it? References: <20141221155635.GA1388@aio> <20141221175658.3d574a88.freebsd@edvax.de> <549705CE.1050108@hiwaay.net> <20141221182108.GA860@aio> In-Reply-To: <20141221182108.GA860@aio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 03:10:58 -0000 On 12/21/14 12:21, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:39:26AM -0600, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> On 12/21/14 10:56, Polytropon wrote: >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:26:37 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >>>> i have been studying the unix way of doing things, >>>> i.e. tool-chaining to combine small programs for >>>> accomplishing a solution. >>> A noble goal. >>> >>> >>> >>>> but, almost none of today's servers built for any >>>> of today's unix-like systems adhere to the unix >>>> philosophy. most of them instead, are large >>>> applications. >>> The creation of monolithic applications can be a >>> problem sometimes. It's often being accellerated >>> by GUI paradigms where "one big program" is, often >>> on the basic of object oriented programming (and >>> the typical misunderstandings and misconceptions >>> of that orientation), being "required" - you simply >>> cannot easily apply the UNIX principles here. >>> >> Correctly applied OOP is (kinda) an extension of the UNIX philosophy >> .... Well designed/documented/implemented objects can be assembled into >> useful (compiled) programs readily & quickly. Incorrectly applied, or >> crappy objects & you have a mess .... >> > somehow, tightly coupled 'oop' implementations, eg. c++, ada, etc. > don't feel like an extension of the unix philosophy, infact, they > give a feel of being at the opposite end, the 'vms' philosophy. > on the other hand, loosely coupled 'oop' implementations, eg. obj-c, > java, etc. are quite in tune with the unix philosophy, of having > each object doing it's job and doing it well, and communicating with > other objects by passing messages. > > in that case, would you say that tightly coupled 'oop' systems > exhibit incorrect application of 'oop'? Some might be .... I have always thought of well-designed/implemented/documented as 'feeling like' small, sharp tools, which is pretty much the original UNIX philosophy, IMHO .... I am *not* a huge fan of C++ per-se, since some of the things I like to do programming-wise (opaque objects) are very naturally implemented in C (X11 was originally implemented in ANSI C, & very OOP) & (apparently) rather unnatural & contrary to C++ paradigms, as I understand them. Mind you I have 20+ years in ANSI C (CAD & Gfx visualization programs, as well as large 'batch' analysis codes), & <1 year in C++, so I might be off base .... > > apologies about veering off the list topic, but, i am working through > the design for a combination of compiled, loosely coupled objects using > any language, working across architectures and over heterogenous > networks. and yes, that system is a far cry from being called 'oop'. > > would such a system, in theory, be made to run atop the freebsd kernel > and do away with the 'posix' layer? yes, but the question is whether > it would get accepted by the community at large. > > ~mayuresh > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.