From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>In article ,   
   >>wolfgang kern   wrote:   
   >>>easy answer: it is C, aka limited+bloated+weird HLL-stuff.   
   >>   
   >>It certainly seems like the time for building large systems in C   
   >>has passed.  Frankly, we have better choices now.   
   >   
   >We had better choices three decades ago when we were writing full   
   >operating systems (large scale, distributed) in C++[*][**].   
      
   Eh....  I don't know that C++ is a particularly compelling   
   improvement over C.  It retains many of C's poor semantics, such   
   as the type promotion rules that can lead to hidden UB,   
   nullable pointers, etc, while the object and template semantics   
   are often surprising and unintuitive.   
      
   >We designed a hypervisor at SGI in the late 90's in C++[**].   
      
   Was that part of the Disco work?   
      
   >Or a modula-like language called Sprite which we used at burroughs   
   >for the mainframe MCP (medium systems) or NEWP which the large systems   
   >folks used for MCP development.   
      
   For that matter, Modula-2, Modula-3 or Oberon.  Wirth's efforts   
   are underappreciated in the space.   
      
   >[*] Circa 1989, C++2.1.   
   >   
   >[**] In both cases using a subset that eschewed features with significant   
   >run-time overhead, such as RTTI and Exceptions (most of which showed   
   >up in C++3.0).  And avoiding SGIs standard C++ library.   
      
   I've been pleasantly surprised at how well Rust fits the problem   
   domain.  It's not perfect, but is much better than I had assumed   
   it would be when I first started playing around with it and it's   
   miles ahead of C.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)