LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail [LWN.net]

LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail

Posted Feb 5, 2011 1:23 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
In reply to: LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail by dskoll
Parent article: LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail

Meh... everyone tends to like tools he/she is familiar with. That's just human nature.

This is another way of saying "I do it that way because I always did, but that's OK because everybody else does too.".

But... but... then you're back in dangerous territory, no?

Using a C library and writing the rest of the program in another language is still better than writing it all in C.

OK, now I know you're just arguing for the sake of argument. :) That's totally ridiculous and you know it

It's not, you just didn't understand my point. You said that MTA authors attempt to make their software as efficient as possible, which, together with the fact that most MTAs are written in C, implies that C is the language you can write the most efficient software in. But this simply isn't the case: C is just one spot among many, many, many others on the efficiency-vs.-comfort curve. More specifically, it is not on the performance maximum of that curve, since that's where assembly language is. Yet, many (most?) people seem to believe that C somehow hit the perfect spot for "systems" programming. Even if that was true in 1970, people should start getting comfortable with the idea that it's not any longer.

(Log in to post comments)

LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail

Posted Feb 5, 2011 1:51 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Yet, despite C++ having been available for so long, there's still a distinct lack of widely-used operating systems written in it. Good system programmers are often tend to be the ones familiar with the kernel underlying their code, and that means having to have a good grasp of C regardless of what you'd prefer to code in. There's a natural selection pressure in favour of C even if there are arguably better choices.

(The first significant codebase I worked on was C++, and I've probably still written more Perl than I have C)

LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail

Posted Feb 5, 2011 17:10 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

But this simply isn't the case: C is just one spot among many, many, many others on the efficiency-vs.-comfort curve. More specifically, it is not on the performance maximum of that curve, since that's where assembly language is.

It's not a smooth curve. The transition from C to assembly involves a *huge* increase in the difficulty curve with a relatively modest increase in the efficiency curve. C is a just-high-enough/just-low-enough level language to hit a sweet spot in efficiency-vs-difficulty.

But you already know this and are just arguing for the sake of it.

LCA: Lessons from 30 years of Sendmail

Posted Feb 6, 2011 1:37 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

> But you already know this and are just arguing for the sake of it.
No, I merely disagree with you. C doesn't sit in a sweet spot, as there are many, many useful features that could be added without compromising efficiency, like templates, modules, proper macros and many more. Anyway, discussing this with you is obviously pointless by now.