Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:38:04 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org, dillon@earth.backplane.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <3A9C9CCC.4F9B521D@softweyr.com> References: <200102260529.f1Q5T8413011@curve.dellroad.org> <200102261755.f1QHtvr34064@earth.backplane.com> <200102270624.WAA17949@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com> <3A9BAAF9.C75B39BF@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Arun Sharma wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Feb 2001 18:56:18 +0100, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> wrote:
> > > Ha. Right. Go through any piece of significant code and just see how
> > > much goes flying out the window because the code wants to simply assume
> > > things work. Then try coding conditionals all the way through to fix
> > > it... and don't forget you need to propogate the error condition back
> > > up the procedure chain too so the original caller knows why it failed.
> >
> > So, it all comes down to reimplementing the UNIX kernel in a language
> > that supports exceptions, just like Linus suggested :)
>
> I've often considered writing a language SPECIFICALLY for writing the kernel.
> (no other uses)
>
> I mean it basically uses the same mechaninsims over and over and over again...
>
> linked lists, hash tables, nested loops, etc.etc.
>
> I'd like a language that lets me define the module I'm writing,
> define the way it should behave, and let the boring code be taken care of
> by itelf :-)
Oh, like C++ & STL?
/me ducks and runs, trying not to gag.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A9C9CCC.4F9B521D>