Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:00:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:00:49 -0500 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.24]:3036 "HELO mail.unthought.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:00:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:00:37 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jakob_=D8stergaard?= To: Kai Henningsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] Message-ID: <20011106150037.C3058@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jakob_=D8stergaard?= , Kai Henningsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011104205030.P14001@unthought.net> <20011104210936.T14001@unthought.net> <8CKC8L1Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <8CKC8L1Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de>; from kaih@khms.westfalen.de on Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:23:00AM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:23:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > jakob@unthought.net (Jakob ?stergaard) wrote on 04.11.01 in <20011104210936.T14001@unthought.net>: > ... > > > > Shell programming is great for small programs. You don't need type > > information in the language when you can fit it all in your head. > > > > Now, go write 100K lines of shell, something that does something that is not > > just shoveling lines from one app into a grep and into another app. Let's > > say, a database. Go implement the next Oracle replacement in bash, and tell > > me you don't care about types in your language. > > And now look at how large typical /proc-using code parts are. Do they > match better with your first or your second paragraph? If you write in C, you need type information. No matter if it's 5 lines or 50K. How many of your shell languages use arbitrary precision arithmetic *always* ? If they only do "sometimes" (for some operations) you'll be up shit creek without a paddle once some value you thought was 32 bits turns out to be 64, and your scripts, lacking type informaiton, handle this error "gracefully" (accounting scripts for example where you don't check the output every day, but discover at the end of the quarter that you're fucked because you only have the lower 32 bits of the user's network usage). My argument with the 100K of shell was more to emphasize that type information is necessary in complex systems. Even if you just have 5 lines of Perl, you have a kernel too - it is a complex system already. > > The first? > > I thought so. Well, working for a company that makes a living of reading in /proc (and being fairly good at it), it would be more like the second ;) But I have also coded for HP-UX, Solaris, NT and others. I have seen how others attack the problems of getting information out of systems, and I can see that /proc as it is today is *not* a good answer to that problem. There are worse systems out there than Linux, but there are better ones as well. I see no reason why Linux shouldn't excel in this area too. -- ................................................................ : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : :.........................: putrid forms of man : : Jakob ?stergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/