Re: Broken dream of mine :(

[arnuld uttre]

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:30:08PM +0530, arnuld uttre wrote:

> ... SNIP...
> Anyway, it historically makes sense that a language evolves with
> hardware.  And C, even if it still has the same name, has evolved a bit
> as well.  The real evolution is of course in the step to C++, where it
> really becomes a different language (if you want to use it that way).

I really don't consider C++ a really technically sane evolution.


> I disagree that a complex project must have its own language.  It must
> have a language which is suitable for the problem that is to be solved,
> but that doesn't mean the language needs to be designed.  A language is
> a way of thinking.  It is likely that there already exists a language
> which fits the way you think about your projects.  It most likely is the
> language you most use.  It may be a good idea to try a different one.
> But to design a new language in order to better solve a problem, IMO
> that can only succesfully work for a genious.

Right, and I am not genius. are you ?




> I'm sure you agree the Hurd
> doesn't need another time consuming task at the moment. ;-)

Agreed.


> Of course Richard Stallman is a known hater of C++.  He has a point that
> everybody knows C, so using that makes the code readable for everyone.
> However, our main interest is not that everyone can read our code.
> While that counts for bonus points, the main point is that we can read
> (and write) the code ourselves, and that we can efficiently create
> things in it.  IMO his love for C is unreasonable.  C may still be
> useful in some places, but not in big projects.  With my kernels, I
> personally found out that even when you think that C is a suitable
> language for doing something, it may still be much easier in C++ (and
> probably in another higher-level language as well, but I do share his
> concerns about Java and C#, so I would never recommend those).

I am not influenced by either RMS or Linus's opinions, I like neither C nor C++.



> For me the Hurd is currently sleeping.  When it wakes up, I'll probably
> contribute again, and I certainly wouldn't mind if it would be in C++.
> At the moment, I'm working on kernel stuff anyway (I just like that).
> And of course I do it completely my way when I don't need to cooperate
> with others. :-)


L4 itself is written in C++.  But I was looking for something better,
something more expressive and simple. Unlike C, C++ is clumsy and full
of monstrous ad-hoc complexity. Problem with C is its not very
expressive, the point I like very much about C is its size. You can do
big things with such a small language.



> I have a question for you as well: why are you asking?  Are you just
> amazed that people still want to use ancient tools for modern projects?
> Or are you considering to contibute to it yourself?[2]  Or do you have
> some other reason?

I really do want to contribute. When I did not have this job as Socket
Programmer, I used to spend all of time reading Hurd mailing lists.
Hurd wiki evolved in front me. I have also talked about this with RMS
and RMS says he is not interested in working on Hurd, that no one
should work on Hurd because we already have the kernel  and that time
should be spent on something else (like Guile). Then he complains why
people cal it Linux, not GNU OS or GNU/Linux OS or Lignux.  I don't
agree  GNU needs a kernel (of course a microkernel and that with a
language other than C and C++) . Thats just my feeling after reading
history.


Even after whatever I have said: if there is one place on this Earth
where I will love to work , that will be one of the FSF's branches :)



-- 
http://uttre.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-lost-love-of-mine/