bcs bcs at example.com
Tue Feb 14 20:03:22 PST 2012

On 02/12/2012 12:32 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 12.02.2012 03:03, schrieb bcs:
>> On 02/11/2012 09:19 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> Am 11.02.2012 18:00, schrieb bcs:
>>>> On 02/11/2012 12:58 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>>> Specially since systems programming in MacOS X and Windows world is
>>>> Systems programming in the MacOS X and Windows world isn't real systems
>>>> programming. The closest you get is kernel and driver work but even
>>>> there you have most of an OS to work with. I think the kind of systems
>>>> programming being considered is embedded work and/or things like BIOS
>>>> work.
>>> Systems programming is everything you need to get an OS up and running.
>>> At least it was so a few decades back when I attended computer science
>>> and informatics engineering course.
>> OK then there may be some people doing systems programming for MacOS X
>> and Windows, but they all work for Apple and MS.
> So do you mean everyone doing device driver development are also working
> for them?

I've never worked on them but I seem to recall from somewhere that 
Windows drivers operate in an environment that has a lot of "supporting 
infrastructure".  Assuming that's not off in the weeds, I suspect the 
cases is not to different for OS-x.

> As well as all the companies writing services/daemons with low level
> protocols for optimal perfomance?

If you are working in user mode your claim to doing systems programming 
is weakened. The same goes if any part of your program can afford to use 
a GC.

I will grant that there is a lot of ground between that and the "very 
much not systems programming" type of work that goes into a things like 
web apps. However, I would assert that a formal D- sub-set/dialect would 
mostly be of use on the core kernel development and 
embedded-systems/micro-controllers end of things. Outside that, I 
suspect that >90% of the advantage can be had via a well selected style 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list