Linux

48328 readers

632 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

162

Are there any things in Linux that need to be started over from scratch? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 7 months ago by sepulcher@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

268 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I'm afraid that at some point, we'll realize there are issues with the software we're using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite.

Are there any instances of this happening? Where something is designed with a flaw that doesn't get realized until much later, necessitating scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (28 children)

I would say the whole set of C based assumptions underlying most modern software, specifically errors being just an integer constant that is translated into a text so it has no details about the operation tried (who tried to do what to which object and why did that fail).

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 7 points 7 months ago (12 children)

You mean 0 indicating success and any other value indicating some arbitrary meaning? I don't see any problem with that.

Passing around extra error handling info for the worst case isn't free, and the worst case doesn't happen 99.999% of the time. No reason to spend extra cycles and memory hurting performance just to make debugging easier. That's what debug/instrumented builds are for.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Ugh, I do not miss C...

Errors and return values are, and should be, different things. Almost every other language figured this out and handles it better than C.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's more of an ABI thing though, C just doesn't have error handling.

And if you do exception handling wrong in most other languages, you hamstring your performance.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

The unofficial C motto "Make it fast, who gives a shit about correctness"

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)