Re: [TUHS] Systematic approach to command-line interfaces

At Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:10:16 -0700, Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TUHS] Systematic approach to command-line interfaces Mmap() as we have it today almost completely ignores the bigger picture and the lessons that came before it. It was an add-on hack that basically said only "Oh, Yeah, we can do that too! Look at this." -- and nobody bothered to look for decades. For one it has no easy direct language support (though it is possible in C to pretend to use it directly, though the syntax often gets cumbersome). Single-level-storage was obviously designed into Multics from the beginning and from the ground up, and it was easily used in the main languages supported on Multics -- but it was just an add-on hack in Unix (that, if memory serves me correctly, was initially only poorly used in another extremely badly designed add-on hack that didn't pay any attention whatsoever to past lessons, i.e. dynamic linking. which to this day is a horror show of inefficiencies and bad hacks). I think perhaps the problem was that mmap() came too soon in a narrow sub-set of the Unix implementations that were around at the time, when many couldn't support it well (especially on 32-bit systems -- it really only becomes universally useful with either segments or 64-bit and larger address spaces). The fracturing of "unix" standards at the time didn't help either. Perhaps these "add-on hack" problems are the reason so many people think fondly of the good old Unix versions where everything was still coming from a few good minds that could work together to build a cohesive design. The add-ons were poorly done, not widely implemented, and usually incompatible with each other when they were adopted by additional implementations. -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods(a)acm.org> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods(a)robohack.ca> Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com> Avoncote Farms <woods(a)avoncote.ca>