From: Ian Molton <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library. Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:12:36 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview] Message-ID: <loom.20100610T204637firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4AFD7EAD1AAC4E54A416BA3F6E6A9E52@ntdev.corp.microsoft.com> Dmitry Kakurin <dmitry.kakurin <at> gmail.com> writes: > > [ snip ] > > When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd: > 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about > portability, it's BS. Word to the wise... you effectively just told one of *the* best known programmers of all time that they are talking BS... nice one. Hope you've got some flameproof undies. Whats that? no? ah well... I smell a troll, but since everyone else has had a go... Heres some comments picked out from the thread, in no particular order... > > You have a very strange way of not meaning to start a C vs. C++ war. > I honestly didn't. I didn't even think it's possible. In the > environment of mainstream commercial software development the last war > on this subj was over 8-10 years ago. Really? I dont know what planet you're from, but this 'war' has been raging for decades, and will probably continue until one side or the other gets round to using tactical nukes. And besides, this *isn't* the commercial (closed) software world - we've moved on. We no longer depend on closed companies handing out features like orphans in the Victorian times... >>> [bitfields in D] >> Really, I feel this is a big lack, for a language that aims at >> simplicity, conciseness _and_ correctness. >> >> OK, maybe I'm biased, I work with networks protocols all day long, so >> I often need bitfields, but still, a lot of people deal with network >> protocols, it's not a niche. > > And strictly speaking, C bitfields are completely useless for that > purpose since the compiler is free to use whatever method he wants for > allocating bit fields. So if you want to write a portable program, > you are back to making the masks yourself. Sadly. Thats always been one of the things I found annoying in C. There are times when you want access to the types the hardware itself uses, and there are times when you want to know your int is 32 bits long, and there isnt really a standardised way of doing that. Of course, its worked around in practice, but it all seems so unnecessary. > in the *real world* rewriting Git in assembly would be like > painting a house using a single horse hair instead of a paint brush > or roller. Your SHA-1 example is a perfect example of where you > benefit from doing a tiny embellished detail using the single hair > (assembly) and leave all the rest in C. The above comment is pure epic win :-) On another note, some people talked about code reuse... IMHO Sourcecode reuse is something of a myth in any language. Sure, some small algorithms get reused, but thats really not a language dependent characteristic. As soon as you build something much bigger than an algorithm, it starts to need an interface, and at that point you may as well turn it into a library. Thats where the REAL code reuse happens. And as it happens at runtime, its good for users - bugfixes help everyone. On to language choice... I have NEVER understood why people seem to think theres some kind of hierarchy in either ease of coding or speed. You see it all the time, people think that: assembler is faster than c is faster than c++ is faster than perl etc. WHY? I've seen some truely braindamaged assembler that could be outperformed by BASIC on a BBC micro. I've seen 'handcrafted' C and C++ that looked like it was written during a skydive whilst on crack. languages are *tools*. Pick the most appropriate. Use two. Embrace the power of and... Linux make good use of C and assembler, both compiled/assembled seperately and inline. Some stuff like accessing weird registers with oddball opcodes is actually impossible under C. But (say) write a filesystem in assembler? no thanks! (not that it hasn't been done, but for the love of god, why?) So, anyway, why do these kind of threads never go away? because opinions are like arseholes. Everyones got one. As you grow older, you learn stuff. You hopefully dont repeat the mistakes of ones youth. (theres at least one ill-conceived C string library out there which I'm embarrased to admit is my fault (hopefully it'll never leave the company I was at when I wrote it...). These threads are where the n00bs meet the pros. Usually, the n00bs just need to suck it up and admit it when they've been dumb. Its a very rare day when something truely radical comes along, and its even rarer when its born of total inexperience. Nothing to see here... All the best, -Ian PS. ironically, in order to post this, gmane required me to enter a word. That word was "restraint". Gotta love karma.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-11 11:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2007-09-04 20:50 Lukas Sandström 2007-09-04 21:38 ` Alex Riesen 2007-09-04 23:01 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-05 14:54 ` Kristian Høgsberg 2007-09-05 17:29 ` Matthieu Moy 2007-09-06 2:30 ` Miles Bader 2007-09-06 4:48 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-06 4:59 ` Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-06 9:12 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-06 9:35 ` Junio C Hamano 2007-09-06 10:21 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-06 9:52 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-06 5:03 ` Miles Bader 2007-09-06 12:08 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-09-06 17:50 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-09-07 0:21 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-07 0:38 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-09-07 1:08 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-07 1:27 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-09-07 3:09 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-07 5:48 ` David Symonds 2007-09-07 6:15 ` Theodore Tso 2007-09-20 14:06 ` Steven Burns 2007-09-20 14:56 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 6:31 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 22:17 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-07 22:28 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-08 0:37 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-08 6:25 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-09 0:29 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 6:52 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 10:28 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-09-07 10:26 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-09-07 6:50 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 1:12 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-09-07 1:40 ` alan 2007-09-07 5:09 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 7:40 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 8:15 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 8:26 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 9:14 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 9:31 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 20:22 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 20:27 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 23:16 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-08 23:50 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-09 0:37 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-09 1:36 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 11:36 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 9:41 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-07 19:03 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 19:31 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 20:49 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 19:41 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-07 19:51 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 19:59 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-07 20:40 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 20:56 ` Pierre Habouzit 2007-09-07 22:54 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-08 0:56 ` John 'Z-Bo' Zabroski 2007-09-08 6:36 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-19 19:56 ` Steven Burns 2007-09-07 3:06 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 4:06 ` Paul Wankadia 2007-09-07 4:30 ` Nicolas Pitre 2007-09-07 9:19 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 6:25 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 10:56 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-09-07 11:54 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 12:33 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 12:55 ` Karl Hasselström 2007-09-07 13:58 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 14:13 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-09 0:09 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 16:09 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 11:30 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 8:36 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 9:41 ` Andreas Ericsson 2007-09-07 19:23 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-07 19:40 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-09 0:25 ` Andreas Ericsson 2009-09-17 16:23 ` Bernd Jendrissek 2007-09-07 11:52 ` Wincent Colaiuta 2007-09-07 19:25 ` Walter Bright 2007-09-22 16:52 ` Steven Burns 2007-09-07 6:47 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 7:41 ` Andy Parkins 2007-09-07 8:08 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-07 10:21 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-09-08 0:32 ` Dmitry Kakurin 2007-09-08 6:24 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-08 23:25 ` Alex Riesen 2007-09-24 13:41 ` figo 2007-09-24 13:57 ` David Kastrup 2007-09-25 19:19 ` Steven Burns 2007-09-25 19:55 ` David Kastrup 2012-05-22 18:30 ` Syed M Raihan 2010-06-10 19:12 ` Ian Molton [this message] 2010-06-11 12:23 ` Jakub Narebski 2010-06-11 13:33 ` Dario Rodriguez 2007-09-05 15:27 ` Kristian Høgsberg 2007-09-07 10:47 ` Lukas Sandström
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=loom.20100610T204637email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library.' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).