| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Writing kernel modules in HaskellWriting kernel modules in HaskellPosted Sep 14, 2009 13:20 UTC (Mon) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)In reply to: Writing kernel modules in Haskell by alankila Parent article: Writing kernel modules in Haskell
Oops, you are right, I forgot about that trick (which I have already used several times myself). Let me rephrase then: "a = b" in C can only mean the equivalent of a simple MOV for each byte of the variable (that is, it will read from each byte of "b" once, and write to each byte of "a" once; of course this will be optimized to read/write several bytes each time). The performance characteristics are still quite transparent.
(Log in to post comments)
Writing kernel modules in Haskell Posted Sep 14, 2009 21:27 UTC (Mon) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Yes. I fully agree with your basic argument.
Since Java is sort of C++'s successor, perhaps I can be justified to drag it into this discussion. There is something fairly nice about its way to have essentially two languages in it: a simple unextendable arithmetic language for doing underlying operations with -- no confusion possible about what any of the expressions mean and it's analogous to C -- and an object language which is used for extending the core language. It has plenty of the good parts of C++, I guess, but I would agree that it's far from perfect.
However, the discussion we are having now can not occur in Java. In fact, since defining classes is the only possible way you can extend Java in any sense of word, you are even encouraged to not know or care what happens behind a method. It's an unusual dichotomy, but I must agree that it works. It's sort of brilliant, even.
(I'm watching myself turn into a Java enthusiast. Oh dear.)
Writing kernel modules in Haskell Posted Sep 16, 2009 2:37 UTC (Wed) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071) [Link] (I'm watching myself turn into a Java enthusiast. Oh dear.) I'm suffering the same pain. Built-in GUI toolkit (even if it's pretty dire), sane and complete libraries, native Unicode string class (do not mention std::wstring in my presence), no build system pain, solid built-in threading and concurrency ... I'm getting to like it. I really miss RAII, though. It's not really possible in Java as there's no way to ensure a dtor fires reliably when an object exists scope, as with stack-based instances in C++. It's a real shame and a pain point for me, as working with program flow when exceptions are involved is excruciating without RAII. If I'm missing something and there's a reasonable way to do or approximate RAII in Java, please let me know...
Writing kernel modules in Haskell Posted Sep 17, 2009 6:10 UTC (Thu) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link]
Just like I wouldn't write C without one of glib or apr, I wouldn't write
C++ without Qt. Just as an aside, Qt has a built-in GUI toolkit (not dire, btw), sane and complete libraries (although not as comprehensive as Java I'd imagine), a native Unicode string class, minimal build system pain (usually as easy as qmake -project && qmake && make), and solid built-in threading and concurrency.
And you get RAII.
Writing kernel modules in Haskell Posted Sep 15, 2009 9:42 UTC (Tue) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link]
> of course this will be optimized to read/write several bytes each time
Do not be so sure of this "of course", for instance GCC:
I have to say that older compiler version were copying fields of structure more efficiently, because they were not optimised to compile
|
|
||||||||||||