On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:28:45AM +0800, Ben Kloosterman wrote: > By using languages that don't allow pointers .
I imagine that will go over well with programmers in general. I would be all for that, but it seems most people don't want to rewrite all their code. Of course sticking with our current crap isn't a good plan long term (or maybe even short term). Pointers under programmer control certainly are a huge source of evil. > Please read the paper "Rethinking the Software stack" 2005 Galen Hunt et al. > Which measured at 11% for a web server load with compile time checks or 6% > MMU cost for compile and runtime checks. I don't know if I would agree it is the MMU's fault. The TLB looks to very much be at fault (at least in the case of x86 as currently implemented). The MMU could still be used for protection without the TLB issue I imagine, although then you loose all the memory fragmentation solving that the MMU can give you. Of course if you can in fact hide that problem using the software (in the language runtime) and make memory fragments transparent, then that might not be such a big deal. I would be impressed to see that really work. I sometimes wonder why we still use shared memory space computer architectures. Systems used to exist with seperate code and data memory spaces. Seems like a pretty darn good idea. Of course intel would never let us give up on the terrible x86 architecture (although I guess with the Itanium they tried to). I guess we have to blame users for demanding backwards compatibility with existing software. > Again read the paper , for C++ apps its difficult ( though MS are trying it > with Windows device driver verication ) for Java , .NET or other > environments it's much easier and most of the checks can be done on the byte > or CIL code. Well I hate C++. I tolerate C because it is currently useful. Java should be exterminated. .NET is too tied to a single OS to be interesting at this time (and much much much too big. No runtime library should be a 50MB download). I like ML (I wish I knew it better, specifically CAML or OCAML). I would probably like F# if it was available for an OS I cared to run. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
