TickleSteve
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
This usage is more "User Interface" or "shell".
I was involved in a product with a large codebase structured like this and it was a maintainability nightmare with no upsides. Multiple attempts were made to move away from this to no avail.
Consider that the code has terrible readability due to no syntax-sugar, the compiler cannot see through the pointers to optimise anything, tooling has no clue what to do with it. On top of that, the syntax is odd and requires any newbies to effectively understand how a c++ compiler works under-the-hood to get anything out of it.
On top of those points, the dubious benefits of OOP make doing this a quick way to kill long-term maintainability of your project.
For the devs who come after you, dont try to turn C into a poor-mans C++. If you really want to, please just use C++.
/s
The purpose of an OS is to manage the resources of the computer, CPU, RAM, devices, etc. This is simply a UI generated by an NN.
Seriously. :o)
- Lisp/lispm
- Ada/iAPX
- C/ARM
- Java/Jazelle
Most don't really take off or go in different directions as the language goes out of fashion.
Contractors get paid for the time they're not in work.
I've been on both sides and have always been lucky in that I've gone from contract to contract but that is certainly not guaranteed.
"Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of Unix," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel))
Interestingly, MkLinux was the same type of project but for Linux instead of BSD (i.e. Linux userland with Mach kernel).
Having a tiny standard library is also a good thing, not a bad one... I'm not saying its an ideal API but in general, smaller==better (within reason).
- scaling vertically is cheaper to develop
- scaling horizontally gets you further.
What is correct for your situation depends on your human, financial and time resources.