[OT] Windows dying

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 08:53:07AM +0000, Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 November 2017 at 05:13:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> And that's a nice argument for D (dmd, phobos) as it is quite compact and
> relatively well written so that it can be reviewed by mere mortals. Ever
> tried to read gcc or glibc ? Forget about it if you're not an astronaut.

Yeah, I've (tried to) read glibc source code before.  It's ... not for
the uninitiated. :-P

Which brings up another point about open source code: just because you
can *see* the code, doesn't guarantee you'll *understand* enough of it
to verify its correctness.


> Even when not knowing D all to well I could understand what was going
> on in phobos and check some of the common pitfalls [...]

Yeah, that was one thing that totally amazed me about D the first time I
looked at the Phobos source code.  It's sooo readable!!!!!  Very unlike
most of the source of standard libraries of other languages that I've
tried to read.  The fact that D allows the Phobos authors to express
complex concepts needed in standard libraries in a readable,
maintainable way, was a big selling point of D to me.

There *are* some dark, dirty corners in Phobos where the code makes you
cringe... but generally speaking, these are restricted to only a few
rare places, rather than pervasive throughout the code the way, say,
glibc source code is.  Or any sufficiently-complex C/C++ library,
really, that generally tends to slide into macro spaghetti hell,
conditional #ifdef nightmare, and/or non-standard compiler extension
soup that drowns out any semblance of "normal" C/C++ syntax.


> > At least with open source code disinterested 3rd parties can review
> > the code without undue bias and notice problems (and ostensibly, fix
> > them).  But let's not kid ourselves that open source is
> > *necessarily* better. It *can* be better in some cases, but it
> > depends.  Trust is a far more complex issue than "proprietary is
> > bad, open source is good", as certain open source zealots would have
> > us believe.  It takes more than just being open source; other
> > factors also play a critical role, so just because something is open
> > source guarantees nothing.
> > 
> There's also some open source projects are also maintained by dicks
> and working with them make the whole experience nasty.

Yeah.  There's always the option to fork, of course, which isn't
possible with proprietary software.  But even then, they can still make
your life a living hell if you're unlucky enough to get on their wrong
side.


T

-- 
Philosophy: how to make a career out of daydreaming.