[TUHS] more about Brian...
stu at remphrey.net
Sun Feb 6 16:40:20 AEST 2022
I like the point that malloc()/free() could be seen as a "failure of
As to the GC and (Go | Rust) vs (C | Java | C++) earlier in this
perhaps it's an issue of whether that automation is applied at runtime or
(the latter still requiring guidance from the programmer, trading some
programmer-brain-time against cpu-execution-time & memory space?)
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022, 14:28 Rob Pike, <robpike at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand your disagreement. In what way is automatic memory
> management harder, more unsafe, and less robust than hand-written memory
> management using malloc and free?
> You seem to think that garbage collection only exists in languages that
> have a smell you don't like. Perhaps that's true, but it's been around for
> 60 or more years and a lot of important languages use it, while the
> programmers that use those languages are often quite capable.
> Using malloc and free might be a badge of honor to some, but it's also a
> failure of automation.
> This discussion should probably go to COFF, or perhaps I should just leave
> the list. I am starting to feel uncomfortable here. Too much swagger.
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 5:19 PM Ed Carp <erc at pobox.com> wrote:
>> "it's a lot easier, safer, and robust to let the machine do the memory
>> I disagree. "The machine" is, as you know, is in reality app code
>> built on top of frameworks built on top of libraries built on top of
>> more libraries built on top of malloc/free calls. While the automated
>> testing tools are a lot better than they were when I started coding C
>> back in 1985, we're still talking about a *lot* of complexity and a
>> lot of layers of code, and programmers today know far less about
>> things like boundary conditions, off-by-one bugs, and the like that
>> bit us in the ass - hard - and so we learned to watch for those sorts
>> of things.
>> On 2/5/22, Rob Pike <robpike at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Be careful with your castigations. Yes, there is lots of old working
>> > but keep in mind that that code has often not been as widely tested and
>> > deployed as much of the software that runs today. The fact that it
>> > well on old hardware doesn't mean it will be suitable for modern
>> > remotely administered multicore machines pounded on by millions of
>> > And speaking of multicore, it's possible to write code using malloc/free
>> > that doesn't leak when run concurrently, but it's a lot easier, safer,
>> > robust to let the machine do the memory accounting. And the fact that
>> > today" can't do it doesn't mean they are lazy or failures, it means they
>> > grew up in a different time. And a lot of them are as capable as you
>> > just in a different environment.
>> > Lately this list has a lot of attitude and prejudice pretending to be
>> > wisdom and superiority.
>> > -rob
>> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 12:11 PM Will Senn <will.senn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2/5/22 6:56 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 09:28:10PM +0100, Hellwig Geisse wrote:
>> >> Hi Thomas,
>> >> On Fr, 2022-02-04 at 20:45 +0100, Thomas Paulsen wrote:
>> >> I tell you one thing: I never ever experienced any problems with
>> >> traditional malloc()/free().??
>> >> did you ever write a program which does heavy malloc()/free()
>> >> on complicated (i.e., shared) data structures *and* runs for
>> >> days, perhaps weeks? IMO it's very difficult to do this without
>> >> a GC, and you have to exercise quite an amount of discipline
>> >> to do it right.
>> >> I've done this and I've employed people who have done this. We're
>> >> a dieing breed, the focus seems to be on programming languages and
>> >> tools for idiots. People don't want to learn the discipline it takes
>> >> to work with malloc()/free(). It's sad.
>> >> I completely agree. This is ridiculous. Do modern programmer's
>> >> think that the old code wasn't complex or robust? Sheesh, there's code
>> >> out
>> >> there that has run through more millions of transactions an hour for
>> >> years than most of these folks have been alive. There's also code
>> >> been running without any updates, for decades. Most code written by the
>> >> newbreed won't run for a month without surfacing dozens of bugs.
>> >> Hamilton would prolly have some choice words for these folks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TUHS