Steffen Kluge wrote:
We have to get away from the mind-set where tools dictate how we think and design. We must not confuse design and implementation.
People can write anything compilable from machine code directly. But do they? No. If you are spending a chunk of your brainspace worrying about the carry flag state and the right opcode for the kind of mov you need then your finite attention is squandered and you become incapable of reaching your potential to engage with the true abstract nature of the problem in front of you.
Therefore it does matter what language you are using, it does affect how you come at a problem, how you can consider a solution, and how successful you will be with the implementation. In short you cannot correctly choose an architecture without deeply understanding the constraints of the implementation, and that inevitably includes the abilities of the language.
Just like a guy with a C compiler can outperform (in scalability, in the scope of task he can take on with low risk) the guy with an Assembler (or 32 toggle switches and a footpedal) who is aping the methods of the compiler guy, the guy who has a C++ compiler can take on and win more than the guy with the C compiler who is aping the methods of the C++ guy. Somehow the kernel and Gnome reached a local optimum at the C hacker level and that is where they stay.
-Andy -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
