Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.9 Dropping Soft Scrollback Support From FB + VGA Console Code

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by StarterX4 View Post
    Hell no.
    What are you replying to?

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

      when you say modern languages, I hear slow and bloated ...
      That depends on the language.

      Rust may statically link its dependencies and require you to manually run strip to get rid of the stdlib debugging symbols in a release build, but it's definitely not slow.

      On the Benchmarks Game, the difference between C, C++, and Rust is so within the margin of error that I've seen pretty much every possible ordering of those three as it varies from month to month. (This month, Rust beat out C but they both lost to C++. Some months, C++ is the slowest of the three.)

      ...and given how much ability Rust's type system gives you to rule out invalid states at compile time, it's definitely modern. (Not to mention that benchmarks tend to use tricks that no production project would consider worth the maintainability headache, which gives things with strong type systems an advantage in real-world performance-optimization situations.)
      Last edited by ssokolow; 16 September 2020, 03:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Language speed doesn't matter and never did matter unless you're doing something enterprise scale, which I'm willing to bet nobody here has ever done. Languages are a human user thing, not a performance thing.

        And I don't even know what a "bloated language" is. The only thing that comes to mind there is C++, and that's far from modern.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

          That depends on the language.

          Rust may statically link its dependencies and require you to manually run strip to get rid of the stdlib debugging symbols in a release build, but it's definitely not slow.

          On the Benchmarks Game, the difference between C, C++, and Rust is so within the margin of error that I've seen pretty much every possible ordering of those three as it varies from month to month. (This month, Rust beat out C but they both lost to C++. Some months, C++ is the slowest of the three.)

          ...and given how much ability Rust's type system gives you to rule out invalid states at compile time, it's definitely modern. (Not to mention that benchmarks tend to use tricks that no production project would consider worth the maintainability headache, which gives things with strong type systems an advantage in real-world performance-optimization situations.)
          The size of the binary is not what concerns me at all.
          In fact I am a big fan of static linking.
          It is run time size of the program that concerns me (RSS / PSS)
          Last edited by Raka555; 17 September 2020, 04:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Ironmask View Post
            Language speed doesn't matter and never did matter unless you're doing something enterprise scale, which I'm willing to bet nobody here has ever done. Languages are a human user thing, not a performance thing.

            And I don't even know what a "bloated language" is. The only thing that comes to mind there is C++, and that's far from modern.
            I am not referring to the language itself being bloated or slow. That does not matter.
            I am referring to the runtime memory usage and speed of program said language produces. ( Not the file size of the binary either)

            And speed does matter, nobody enjoys waiting 3s for a response after they clicked something ...

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

              The size of the binary is not what concerns me at all.
              In fact I am a big fan of static linking.
              It is run time size of the program that concerns me (RSS / PSS)
              Ahh, then Rust would do better than C or C++ in real-world scenarios because the lack of compile-time reference liveness checking (ie. the borrow checker) in C and C++ results in a "when in doubt, make a copy" mindset.

              (I've run across various blog posts which talk about this as a problem with things like std::string_view in C++. In real-world codebases, programmers err on the side of caution when dealing with them.)

              Rust also helps by:
              • Automatically optimizing the ordering of fields in structs to minimize necessary padding unless you ask it for a C-compatible memory layout with #[repr(C)], in which case, like in C and C++, it's up to you.
              • Complementing Option<T> (which replaces NULL outside the raw pointer type used for C FFI) with a NonNull<T> marker/wrapper so you can write Option<T> and the compiler will check whether T or one of its members (recursively) has an unused NULL bit pattern that can represent None on the Option. (And that's not a hazard because the compile-time prevent you from observing the difference between the optimized and unoptimized memory formats.)

              For other languages though, I can definitely see your point. Pretty much anything with a garbage collector tends toward heap-allocated reference spaghetti and that has led language users and designers to get lazy in that respect.
              Last edited by ssokolow; 17 September 2020, 09:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
                ...and given how much ability Rust's type system gives you to rule out invalid states at compile time, it's definitely modern.
                ...wouldn't rule out M$ purchacing all that (as it depends on just mozilla corp, which apparently going to be for sale soon) - and then M$ would be able to dictate what is good and bad, ask for double-factor authentication or offload other "improvements" on your head - as everyone has recently seen on Github's example.

                Oh, sure, some ppl don't get idea from just one punch - now primary fun is going to be around ARM, but I can imagine faces of Rust fans who would soon find self in same boat, figuring out solution locked on just one corp that got sold isn't exactly cool. C got quite an ultimate advantage in this regard: not controlled by single nasty corp! Sure, Rust got interesting ideas, but implementation, especially centralized repo locked on just one vendor is awful.
                Last edited by SystemCrasher; 17 September 2020, 10:40 PM.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by Raka555 View Post
                  I am referring to the runtime memory usage and speed of program said language produces. ( Not the file size of the binary either)
                  If you link everything in static way...
                  1) You can't just replace one lib and fix whole system if some bug/vuln/whatever found. Locating and rebuilding all users of lib suddenly turns into managenent nightmare. Some scenarios can get with it, but in some (think of usual desktop) just happens to be dead end.
                  2) If your binary is larger, runtime memory usage is larger. Well, at least that code/data generally have to be in RAM, right?! (really it more complicated, but idea stays)
                  3) If you link lib statically... there is no way to see other programs use same lib and only keep single instance of that in memory anymore. Can you imagine, these days all sane OSes around would keep only one instance of dynamic lib code/data as long as they are identical - and so mem usage only grows when copies actually diverge, usually slightly. Static linking obviously breaks this process.

                  Say, run 10 apps using dynamic Qt - and only 1 instance of Qt would be in memory (+/- small differences of each instance). Run 10 statically linked apps - and you have 10 independent instances of Qt in RAM, not anyhow sharing pages anymore. Just because nobody even knows this code is same or similar. So static linking causes resource hogging.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                    ...wouldn't rule out M$ purchacing all that (as it depends on just mozilla corp, which apparently going to be for sale soon) - and then M$ would be able to dictate what is good and bad, ask for double-factor authentication or offload other "improvements" on your head - as everyone has recently seen on Github's example.

                    Oh, sure, some ppl don't get idea from just one punch - now primary fun is going to be around ARM, but I can imagine faces of Rust fans who would soon find self in same boat, figuring out solution locked on just one corp that got sold isn't exactly cool. C got quite an ultimate advantage in this regard: not controlled by single nasty corp! Sure, Rust got interesting ideas, but implementation, especially centralized repo locked on just one vendor is awful.
                    Even the Year of Our Lord 2020 where MS is literally saying they love and celebrate Linux and open source and have opened sourced their own languages, there are still Linux cultists who are stuck in 1990 and still think Bill Gates is CEO. So they bash the company senselessly, unprompted, like a hate-crush.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                      ...wouldn't rule out M$ purchacing all that (as it depends on just mozilla corp, which apparently going to be for sale soon) - and then M$ would be able to dictate what is good and bad, ask for double-factor authentication or offload other "improvements" on your head - as everyone has recently seen on Github's example.

                      Oh, sure, some ppl don't get idea from just one punch - now primary fun is going to be around ARM, but I can imagine faces of Rust fans who would soon find self in same boat, figuring out solution locked on just one corp that got sold isn't exactly cool. C got quite an ultimate advantage in this regard: not controlled by single nasty corp! Sure, Rust got interesting ideas, but implementation, especially centralized repo locked on just one vendor is awful.
                      There is so much wrong with this post that I'm having trouble figuring out where to start.
                      1. Mozilla Corporation and The Mozilla Foundation are not the same thing.
                      2. Did you read an article I missed that The Mozilla Foundation has plans to sell Mozilla Corporation (the corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the not-for-profit organization) or are you just speculating based on the lay-offs?
                      3. It was mentioned right here on Phoronix that they're preparing to spin Rust off into a foundation of its own.
                      4. What would Microsoft control? It's all open-source, we're seeing more and more interest from other rich, giant corporations like Amazon who wouldn't take too kindly to Microsoft trying to dictate terms to their cloud hosting competitors, and everyone's used to an open governance model rather than a BDFL model like in something like Python.
                      5. C is as clean as it is because nobody important cares. Microsoft has been pumping all their "we use this internally, so let's standardize it" clutter into C++ via their membership on that standards body.
                      6. TypeScript is pretty nice... does it change your perspective on it to know that it's a Microsoft project?
                      7. Rust doesn't technically have only one implementation. mrustc may not have a borrow checker yet, but, as long as you can trust that the code is good, it'll compile it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X