From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 21 18:21:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 317D2BC4 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::195]) (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 E44F92C98 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mfilter23-d.gandi.net (mfilter23-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.151]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78BAA80B0; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:21:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter23-d.gandi.net Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]) by mfilter23-d.gandi.net (mfilter23-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id slJkqc845gLn; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:21:13 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 120.60.176.93 Received: from localhost (triband-mum-120.60.176.93.mtnl.net.in [120.60.176.93]) (Authenticated sender: mayuresh@kathe.in) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 499CDA80AD; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:21:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:51:09 +0530 From: Mayuresh Kathe To: "William A. Mahaffey III" Subject: Re: posix has been rendered useless, isn't it? Message-ID: <20141221182108.GA860@aio> References: <20141221155635.GA1388@aio> <20141221175658.3d574a88.freebsd@edvax.de> <549705CE.1050108@hiwaay.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <549705CE.1050108@hiwaay.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:21:18 -0000 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'? 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