Re:Portability Is Reliability
by lmm on Monday May 10, 2021 @01:57AM
(#27103134)
> Correction, thy don't bother fixing some of the bugs you are talking about. A lot of the other bugs that you are talking about (bugs due to the C language) are fixed. Your proposal was to not add any fixes due to bugs in the C language.
They don't bother fixing large categories of C bugs, to the extent that Linux can't really be said to be a C program - rather it's a program written in an ad-hoc GCC-specific dialect. Not fixing bugs due to the C language (or rather, things that would be bugs if it was interpreted as a C program) is very much part of that.
> What does that have to do with your proposal?
I thought you were holding up Oracle as some paragon of technical excellence to be emulated, which it isn't.
> In fact, if as you say that Oracle is alive because of non-technical reasons, then your proposal that a rewrite is better than a bugfix is even more unreasonable - they can use their lock-in to spend a decade rewriting their core products.
I don't know what you're suggesting or advocating here. I'm not a businessperson and don't have any idea what's the most effective way for Oracle to make money. I do know from personal experience that if you want to make a good product, switching from Oracle to something written in a safer language can help.
> I'm currently working in another field (C and C++ this time), and making small incremental changes is considered by the regulatory bodies as less risky than throwing everything away and restarting.
Regulations are, sadly, often a long way behind what's actually effective.
> The meme "scrap C, rewrite it in $FOO" only applies to software that has very little impact on the world.
On the contrary, the kind of software that actually changes the world tends to be written in non-C. Where C tends to be used is in the kind of software that's a marginal replacement for non-software.
They don't bother fixing large categories of C bugs, to the extent that Linux can't really be said to be a C program - rather it's a program written in an ad-hoc GCC-specific dialect. Not fixing bugs due to the C language (or rather, things that would be bugs if it was interpreted as a C program) is very much part of that.
> What does that have to do with your proposal?
I thought you were holding up Oracle as some paragon of technical excellence to be emulated, which it isn't.
> In fact, if as you say that Oracle is alive because of non-technical reasons, then your proposal that a rewrite is better than a bugfix is even more unreasonable - they can use their lock-in to spend a decade rewriting their core products.
I don't know what you're suggesting or advocating here. I'm not a businessperson and don't have any idea what's the most effective way for Oracle to make money. I do know from personal experience that if you want to make a good product, switching from Oracle to something written in a safer language can help.
> I'm currently working in another field (C and C++ this time), and making small incremental changes is considered by the regulatory bodies as less risky than throwing everything away and restarting.
Regulations are, sadly, often a long way behind what's actually effective.
> The meme "scrap C, rewrite it in $FOO" only applies to software that has very little impact on the world.
On the contrary, the kind of software that actually changes the world tends to be written in non-C. Where C tends to be used is in the kind of software that's a marginal replacement for non-software.