posix has been rendered useless, isn't it?

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 12/21/14 12:21, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:39:26AM -0600, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>> On 12/21/14 10:56, Polytropon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:26:37 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>>>> i have been studying the unix way of doing things,
>>>> i.e. tool-chaining to combine small programs for
>>>> accomplishing a solution.
>>> A noble goal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> but, almost none of today's servers built for any
>>>> of today's unix-like systems adhere to the unix
>>>> philosophy. most of them instead, are large
>>>> applications.
>>> The creation of monolithic applications can be a
>>> problem sometimes. It's often being accellerated
>>> by GUI paradigms where "one big program" is, often
>>> on the basic of object oriented programming (and
>>> the typical misunderstandings and misconceptions
>>> of that orientation), being "required" - you simply
>>> cannot easily apply the UNIX principles here.
>>>
>> Correctly applied OOP is (kinda) an extension of the UNIX philosophy
>> .... Well designed/documented/implemented objects can be assembled into
>> useful (compiled) programs readily & quickly. Incorrectly applied, or
>> crappy objects & you have a mess ....
>>
> somehow, tightly coupled 'oop' implementations, eg. c++, ada, etc.
> don't feel like an extension of the unix philosophy, infact, they
> give a feel of being at the opposite end, the 'vms' philosophy.
> on the other hand, loosely coupled 'oop' implementations, eg. obj-c,
> java, etc. are quite in tune with the unix philosophy, of having
> each object doing it's job and doing it well, and communicating with
> other objects by passing messages.
>
> in that case, would you say that tightly coupled 'oop' systems
> exhibit incorrect application of 'oop'?

Some might be .... I have always thought of 
well-designed/implemented/documented as 'feeling like' small, sharp 
tools, which is pretty much the original UNIX philosophy, IMHO .... I am 
*not* a huge fan of C++ per-se, since some of the things I like to do 
programming-wise (opaque objects) are very naturally implemented in C 
(X11 was originally implemented in ANSI C, & very OOP) & (apparently) 
rather unnatural & contrary to C++ paradigms, as I understand them. Mind 
you I have 20+ years in ANSI C (CAD & Gfx visualization programs, as 
well as large 'batch' analysis codes), & <1 year in C++, so I might be 
off base ....

>
> apologies about veering off the list topic, but, i am working through
> the design for a combination of compiled, loosely coupled objects using
> any language, working across architectures and over heterogenous
> networks. and yes, that system is a far cry from being called 'oop'.
>
> would such a system, in theory, be made to run atop the freebsd kernel
> and do away with the 'posix' layer? yes, but the question is whether
> it would get accepted by the community at large.
>
> ~mayuresh
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>


-- 

	William A. Mahaffey III

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                            -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.