Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Will Mir Come On The Ubuntu 14.04 Desktop?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    I meant C++ isn't worse option than C for display server.
    Torvalds didn't provide any proofs that C++ is worse than C. Some language which prefer security over performance should be used for kernel. Many security bugs in applications written in C wouldn't exist if code would be written in different language.
    You would always need to drop down to the insecure version for at least some parts of the kernel. Real hardware always means you'll have to deal with the nasty bits. You will decide how memory gets handled, and this means you get the chance to f*ck up things. So, this "security over performance" only fully exists in the high level world. That's why Windows drivers now get most of the driver code in user land, only interfacing a small bit in the kernel: because the kernel bits will always be unsafe.

    Incompetent programmers can use any language. There are also many substandard C programmers according to list of existing and fixed bugs in various software written in C.
    The piece you quoted is the one making me think that's his main reason. And I agree with you.

    Bug in library isn't language problem. Bugs exist also in C libraries and kernel.
    Well, the STL is considered part of the standard C++. In fact, one of the main arguments to use C++ when someone states it's better than C is that it comes with better libraries. Boost should be out of picture, even though it's widely used it shouldn't be considered part of the language.

    This is developer's fault. Something similar happens also with kernel, when driver which works with e.g. 3.10, doesn't work unmodified with 3.11.
    You should acknowledge that changing the object model conceptually changes everything depending on it. Changing a function is more tied to implementation, and that kind of refactoring is way easier than rethinking the whole concept. Anyway, it's still developer's fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Based on there not being a better one. And You Do Not Recall Correctly.
    Yeah, that's a hell of a reason... It's almost as technical as Canonical's reasons to make another display server.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Yeah, that's a hell of a reason...
    Why, do you think there is a better one? What is it?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Why, do you think there is a better one? What is it?
    No, I think that using your thesis as an argument for the thesis is a bit dogmatic.
    My preference is C for almost anything, if you want to know. But I acknowledge it's just that I'm more used to that language than any pragmatic truth.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    No, I think that using your thesis as an argument for the thesis is a bit dogmatic.
    My preference is C for almost anything, if you want to know. But I acknowledge it's just that I'm more used to that language than any pragmatic truth.
    No, I'm not using anything as an argument. Why should I make an argument to defend my initial thesis if there's nothing to challenge the initial thesis? If you say you don't know of any language that is better than C for developing kernels, then it's pointless to argue about it. Even more pointless than the baseline pointlessness of internet arguments in general.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jan1024188 View Post
    If thats the case, than Ubuntu is just pointless. It soon (2-3 years) will be just another obsolete/crappy distro, we should encourage people to switch to other, better distros for desktop than.
    Ubuntu is obsolete now other distro's like openSUSE and Fedora are 2x better than Ubuntu and 99% of ubuntu releases have been buggy laggy bloated and now it has keyloggers preinstalled also the 9mo's of support in Ubuntu is really lame is you look at openSUSE it has 18 mo's of support and Fedora has 12 or 13mo's of support also Fedora has the newest stabe Kernels and graphics stack

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No, I'm not using anything as an argument. Why should I make an argument to defend my initial thesis if there's nothing to challenge the initial thesis? If you say you don't know of any language that is better than C for developing kernels, then it's pointless to argue about it. Even more pointless than the baseline pointlessness of internet arguments in general.
    The generalization that comes from your claim is what puts the charge of proof on you. Your statement that "C is the best low level language" implies "every other language is worse than C for low level programming". Also, while I don't directly agree, there is a proponent of C++ as the best language. I think both are valid choices, as far as reason has been given: actually I saw only reasons for the latter, actually, which come with the fact classes might be more manageable.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    The generalization that comes from your claim is what puts the charge of proof on you. Your statement that "C is the best low level language" implies "every other language is worse than C for low level programming". Also, while I don't directly agree, there is a proponent of C++ as the best language. I think both are valid choices, as far as reason has been given: actually I saw only reasons for the latter, actually, which come with the fact classes might be more manageable.
    the main thing i think is C is more lean than C++ also you can do most any thing in C as C++ for development like a kernel to me C and C++ suck and C# sucks evem more do to it being a microsoft toy

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    You would always need to drop down to the insecure version for at least some parts of the kernel. Real hardware always means you'll have to deal with the nasty bits. You will decide how memory gets handled, and this means you get the chance to f*ck up things. So, this "security over performance" only fully exists in the high level world. That's why Windows drivers now get most of the driver code in user land, only interfacing a small bit in the kernel: because the kernel bits will always be unsafe.
    There are cases where changing language would improve security. Following security bug existed also because C allows out-of-bounds access.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMxMTg

    Well, the STL is considered part of the standard C++. In fact, one of the main arguments to use C++ when someone states it's better than C is that it comes with better libraries. Boost should be out of picture, even though it's widely used it shouldn't be considered part of the language.
    Bug in library like STL is developer's fault.
    Last edited by JS987; 10-19-2013 at 01:31 PM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    the main thing i think is C is more lean than C++ also you can do most any thing in C as C++ for development like a kernel to me C and C++ suck and C# sucks evem more do to it being a microsoft toy
    C# is not even an option, IMO. I mean, that's thought to be used with a managed environment, AFAIK. If you disable those features (and it's a must to code a kernel), you would just be using a C# compiler to compile C++ or C.

    To claim C is leaner, you should provide proof of it. If you disable runtime type checks and exception handling, C++ is pretty much as lean as C, and you should disable both of them to code low level.

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    There are cases where changing language would improve security. Following security bug existed also because C allows out-of-bounds access.
    Then again, any low level language, required for coding low level, gives you the power to do out-of-bounds access. It's a need, that comes with a drawback.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Then again, any low level language, required for coding low level, gives you the power to do out-of-bounds access. It's a need, that comes with a drawback.
    Arrays which support out-of-bounds access are unnecessary and dangerous, when code isn't properly checked which is common problem.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •