Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

I wasn't suggesting anybody use newlib. Rather, I was suggesting that all the interface a C, or Go, or Java, or ASM program ever needs between it and the "POSIX" OS is contained in 17 syscalls. That's about as minimal, or suckless as you can get. The fact that the newlib folks identified that fa

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

Louis Santillan wrote: > All we ever needed was 17 syscalls . I would rather implement a syscall for each C library function than use newlib. - This would also make static binaries much smaller. :P

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

All we ever needed was 17 syscalls . On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Andreas Krennmair wrote: > * Alexander Huemer [2013-11-04 15:30]: > >> The only interface to the kernels the suckless.org software runs on is >> in C, the same is true for the standard libr

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

> > The ugly hacks > > like longjmp and varargs make it bad. > > longjmp() is kinda hacky, granted (for instance, setjmp() can only be > used portably in a small number of contexts), but varargs? What's bad If you are used to code in assembler you know where and how you have to use longjmp. If pe

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:57:12PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote: > if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power, > it does make it more clunky to use. True. C's dynamic memory management is proof of that. > Being old isn't what makes C old; Yes it does! But it doesn't make C

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

* Bobby Powers [2013-11-04 13:10:56 -0500]: > 2013/11/4 Szabolcs Nagy : > > go is special in that it builds on the binary syscall layer instead of > > the somewhat portable c api (the syscall layer is not even expected to > > be stable on every unix, openbsd just broke it to have 64bit time_t > >

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

* Sylvain BERTRAND [2013-11-04 19:00]: On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Andreas Krennmair wrote: * Alexander Huemer [2013-11-04 15:30]: >The only interface to the kernels the suckless.org software runs on is >in C, the same is true for the standard librar{y,ies}. Software written >in

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

2013/11/4 Szabolcs Nagy : > the state-of-the-artedness is not a virtue of a programming language Agreed. At the same time, I don't think 'it is not C' should be an automatic point against a language. C is excellent and quite useful, however Go's language is wonderfully simple and makes expressin

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:57:12 +0400 "Alexander S." wrote: > if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power, > it does make it more clunky to use. Why should it be more clunky? It just allows you to fine-tune it. If you don't want to reinvent the wheel use libraries. Internally

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Andreas Krennmair wrote: > * Alexander Huemer [2013-11-04 15:30]: > >The only interface to the kernels the suckless.org software runs on is > >in C, the same is true for the standard librar{y,ies}. Software written > >in any other language is an indirectio

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

* Alexander Huemer [2013-11-04 15:30]: The only interface to the kernels the suckless.org software runs on is in C, the same is true for the standard librar{y,ies}. Software written in any other language is an indirection. The system call interfaces on typical suckless operating systems are l

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

2013/11/4 Szabolcs Nagy : > * Alexander S. [2013-11-04 17:11:40 +0300]: > > the state-of-the-artedness is not a virtue of a programming language > > the main problem with go is that (like java and many other high level > languages) it tries to ignore unix legacy while building on it > > go cannot

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

2013/11/4 Raimundo Martins : > On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:11:40 +0300 > "Alexander S." wrote: > >> Don't want to start a flame, but C isn't exactly state of the art >> language. I shall agree that Go has problems, but why it would be a >> disgrace any worse than a living fossil C is? > > So being old i

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

* Alexander S. [2013-11-04 17:11:40 +0300]: > 2013/11/4 FRIGN : > > > > No one ever said it, because it is expected to be in C. > > Go is a disgrace and I'm glad every time I see a Go-Project bit-rot to > > death. > > > Don't want to start a flame, but C isn't exactly state of the art > language.

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

> Don't want to start a flame, but C isn't exactly state of the art > language. I shall agree that Go has problems, but why it would be a > disgrace any worse than a living fossil C is? I don't agree about C being a living fossil. could you explain why do you think so? C is a language thought for

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:11:40 +0300 "Alexander S." wrote: > Don't want to start a flame, but C isn't exactly state of the art > language. I shall agree that Go has problems, but why it would be a > disgrace any worse than a living fossil C is? So being old implies it's bad? That's the kind of thin

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:11:40PM +0300, Alexander S. wrote: > 2013/11/4 FRIGN : > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:57:23 -0500 > > Jacob Todd wrote: > > > >> No one ever said it had to be in c you fucking nerd. > > > > No one ever said it, because it is expected to be in C. > > Go is a disgrace and I'm g

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

2013/11/4 FRIGN : > On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:57:23 -0500 > Jacob Todd wrote: > >> No one ever said it had to be in c you fucking nerd. > > No one ever said it, because it is expected to be in C. > Go is a disgrace and I'm glad every time I see a Go-Project bit-rot to > death. > > Best Regards > > FRI

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:57:23 -0500 Jacob Todd wrote: > No one ever said it had to be in c you fucking nerd. No one ever said it, because it is expected to be in C. Go is a disgrace and I'm glad every time I see a Go-Project bit-rot to death. Best Regards FRIGN, a fucking nerd. -- FRIGN

[dev] man and man-db

Hi, I've realized recently that starting from the times of Fedora 13 man application was replaced by man-db in all major GNU/Linux distros. Do you thing that using Berkeley DB is better that traditional flat-text whatis db (in my opinion it is, it probably speed up things)? Does the apropos comman

Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

Heyho, Yeah, i know your style and stuff, but i waited for this reply for so long… Christoph Lohmann wrote: > Go extremism will not be tolerated. See what your brothers did to the WTC. Isn't that kind of extremist? ;) --Markus