On 2 June 2012 18:42, Nicolas Cellier
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
>
> Ouch, Igor, you gonna give us a headache.
> That's exatly the kind of niceties that makes FFI impracticle without
> a pre-processor, remember our discussion?
>

That kind of niceties is a poor man's meta programming.
I don't see it as an argument against FFI. For me it is a clear
argument against system design.

Because look.. most of the times you don't care what happens under the hood of
your sport car.. until it stops working, or no longer meets your demands.
>From position of consumer , it is clear what you do next - you go to
market and buy a new one,
or give it to engineers who can fix it.
So, either there is someone who can produce better cars (engineers),
or someone who can fix
your car (engineers). But if there nobody left, and only consumers
around, then you are in trouble.

And FFI actually points to that trouble: you cannot communicate with
system without having
a highly sophisticated compiler and preprocessor and also without
knowledge about which bells you should ring and what whistles you
should whistle.. this is road to nowhere.

This is clearly not FFI's fault. It is fault of system design.
For example, look at config.h file, which produced by autoconfig
utility.. can you tell me, what all those flags controlling? Ok, name
me the purpose of half of them.. Can you?
And then tell me, how you can write a "highly portable" C software and
guarantee that all those bells and whistles are correctly arranged?

>From position of an engineer it is wrong to be on the side of
consumers (i don't care, it is something under the hood of my car,
which makes it run).
And for sure, nobody cares about insignificant little fly such as Cog
VM, except from few of us.
So, you have to go and open a hood of a car and remove a rotten cats &
rats from there,
this is how you can move to better future. Otherwise at some point,
cars will stop working,
planes will stop flying, computers will stop working, because nobody
will be left who would
understand how to make or fix them.

So, this is a right question, posed by Stephane: how we can make sure
that we will be able to
improve system in future, once its creators are gone, and nobody can
understand it anymore?
Only by simplifying and cleaning all layers of a system and without
relying on good Santa, which will come one day and clean this mess for
us.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Reply via email to