tfheen at varnish-cache
Apr 16, 2012, 1:20 AM
Post #1 of 1
(37 views)
Permalink
|
commit c41f68d331364d30f708b2e779fe7fb43703fd02
Author: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk [at] FreeBSD>
Date: Tue Dec 20 20:09:54 2011 +0000
Curse WG14
diff --git a/doc/sphinx/phk/index.rst b/doc/sphinx/phk/index.rst
index 6264f55..822434c 100644
--- a/doc/sphinx/phk/index.rst
+++ b/doc/sphinx/phk/index.rst
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ You may or may not want to know what Poul-Henning think.
.. toctree::
+ thetoolsweworkwith.rst
three-zero.rst
ssl.rst
gzip.rst
diff --git a/doc/sphinx/phk/thetoolsweworkwith.rst b/doc/sphinx/phk/thetoolsweworkwith.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cff365b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/sphinx/phk/thetoolsweworkwith.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+.. _phk_thetoolsweworkwith:
+
+======================
+The Tools We Work With
+======================
+
+"Only amateurs were limited by their tools" is an old wisdom, and
+the world is littered with art and architecture that very much
+proves this point.
+
+But as amazing as the Aquaeduct of Segovia is, tools are the reason
+why it looks nowhere near as fantastic as the Sydney Opera House.
+
+Concrete has been known since antiquity, but steel-reinforced
+concrete and massive numerical calculations of stress-distribution,
+is the tools that makes the difference between using concrete as a
+filler material between stones, and as gravity-defying curved but
+perfectly safe load-bearing wall.
+
+My tool for writing Varnish is the C-language which in many ways
+is unique amongst all of the computer programming languages for
+having no ambitions.
+
+The C language was invented as a portable assembler language, it
+doesn't do objects and garbage-collection, it does numbers and
+pointers, just like your CPU.
+
+Compared to the high ambitions, then as now, of new programming
+languages, that was almost ridiculous unambitious. Other people
+were trying to make their programming languages provably correct,
+or safe for multiprogramming and quite an effort went into using
+natural languages as programming languages.
+
+But C was written to write programs, not to research computer science
+and that's exactly what made it useful and popular.
+
+Unfortunately C fell in bad company over the years, and the reason
+for this outburst is that I just browsed the latest draft from the
+ISO-C standardisation working-group 14.
+
+I won't claim that it is enough to make grown men cry, but it
+certainly was enough to make me angry.
+
+Let me give you an example of their utter sillyness:
+
+The book which defined the C langauge had a list af reserved
+identifiers, all of them lower-case words. The UNIX libraries
+defined a lot of functions, all of them lower-case words.
+
+When compiled, the assembler saw all of these words prefixed
+with an underscore, which made it easy to mix assembler and
+C code.
+
+All the macros for the C-preprocessor on the other hand, were
+UPPERCASE, making them easy to spot.
+
+Which meant that if you mixed upper and lower case, in your
+identifiers, you were safe: That wouldn't collide with anything.
+
+First the ISO-C standards people got confused about the leading
+underscore, and I'll leave you guessing as to what the current
+text actually means:
+
+ All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either
+ an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved
+ for any use.
+
+Feel free to guess.
+
+Next, they broke the upper/lower rule, by adding special keywords
+in mixed case, probably because they thought it looked nicer::
+
+ _Atomic, _Bool, _Noreturn &c
+
+Then, presumably, somebody pointed out that this looked ugly::
+
+ void _Noreturn foo(int bar);
+
+So they have come up with a #include file called <stdnoreturn.h>
+so that instead you can write::
+
+ #include <nostdreturn.h>
+ void noreturn foo(int bar);
+
+The <nostdreturn.h> file according to the standard shall have
+exactly this content::
+
+ #define noreturn _Noreturn
+
+Are you crying or laughing yet ? You should be.
+
+Another thing brought by the new draft is an entirely new thread
+API, which is incompatible with the POSIX 'pthread' API which have
+been used for about 20 years now.
+
+If they had improved on the shortcomings of the pthreads, I would
+have cheered them on, because there are some very annoying mistakes
+in pthreads.
+
+But they didn't, in fact, as far as I can tell, the C1X draft's
+threads are worse than the 20 years older pthreads in all relevant
+aspects.
+
+For instance, neither pthreads nor C1X-threads offer a "assert I'm
+holding this mutex locked" facility. I will posit that you cannot
+successfully develop real-world threaded programs and APIs that,
+or without wasting a lot of time debugging silly mistakes.
+
+If you look in the Varnish source code, which uses pthreads, you
+will see that I have wrapped pthread mutexes in my own little
+datastructure, to be able to do those asserts, and to get some
+usable statistics on lock-contention.
+
+Another example where C1X did not improve on pthreads at all, was
+in timed sleeps, where you say "get me this lock, but give up if
+it takes longer than X time".
+
+The way both pthreads and C1X threads do this, is you specify a UTC
+wall clock time you want to sleep until.
+
+The only problem with that is that UTC wall clock time is not
+continuous when implemented on a computer, and it may not even be
+monotonously increasing, since NTPD or other timesync facilites may
+step the clock backwards, particularly in the first minutes after
+boot.
+
+If the practice of saying "get me this lock before 16:00Z" was
+widespread, I could see the point, but I have actually never seen
+that in any source code. What I have seen are wrappers that take
+the general shape of::
+
+ int
+ get_lock_timed(lock, timeout)
+ {
+ while (timeout > 0) {
+ t0 = time();
+ i = get_lock_before(lock, t + timeout));
+ if (i == WASLOCKED)
+ return (i);
+ t1 = time();
+ timeout -= (t1 - t0);
+ }
+ return (TIMEDOUT);
+ }
+
+Because it's not like the call is actually guaranteed to return at
+16:00Z if you ask it to, you are only promised it will not return
+later than that, so you have to wrap the call in a loop.
+
+Whoever defined the select(2) and poll(2) systemcalls knew better
+than the POSIX and ISO-C group-think: They specifed a maximum
+duration for the call, because then it doesn't matter what time
+it is, only how long time has transpired.
+
+Ohh, and setting the stack-size for a new thread ?
+That is appearantly "too dangerous" so there is no argument in the
+C1X API for doing so, a clear step backwards from pthreads.
+
+But guess what: Thread stacks are like T-shirts: There is no "one
+size fits all."
+
+I have no idea what the "danger" they perceived were, my best
+guess is that feared it might make the API useful ?
+
+This single idiocy will single-handedly doom the C1X thread API
+to uselessness.
+
+Now, don't get me wrong: There are lot of ways to improve the C
+language that would make sense: Bitmaps, defined structure packing
+(think: communication protocol packets), big/little endian variables
+(data sharing), sensible handling of linked lists etc.
+
+As ugly as it is, even the printf()/scanf() format strings could
+be improved, by offering a sensible plugin mechanism, which the
+compiler can understand and use to issue warnings.
+
+Heck, even a simple basic object facility would be good addition,
+now that C++ have become this huge bloated monster language.
+
+But none of that is appearantly as important as <stdnoreturn.h>
+and a new, crippled and therefore useless thread API.
+
+The neat thing about the C language, and the one feature that made
+it so popular, is that not even an ISO-C working group can prevent
+you from implementing all these things using macros and other tricks.
+
+But it would be better to have them in the language, so the compiler
+could issue sensible warnings and programmers won't have to write
+monsters like::
+
+ #define VTAILQ_INSERT_BEFORE(listelm, elm, field) do { \
+ (elm)->field.vtqe_prev = (listelm)->field.vtqe_prev; \
+ VTAILQ_NEXT((elm), field) = (listelm); \
+ *(listelm)->field.vtqe_prev = (elm); \
+ (listelm)->field.vtqe_prev = &VTAILQ_NEXT((elm), field); \
+ } while (0)
+
+To put an element on a linked list.
+
+I could go on like this, but it would rapidly become boring for
+both you and me, because the current C1X draft is 701 pages, and
+it contains not a single explanatory example if how to use any of
+the verbiage in pratice.
+
+Compare this with The C Programming Language, a book of 274 pages
+which in addition to define the C language, taught people how to
+program through well-thought-out examples.
+
+From where I sit, ISO WG14 are destroying the C language I use and love.
+
+Poul-Henning, 2011-12-20
_______________________________________________
varnish-commit mailing list
varnish-commit [at] varnish-cache
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-commit
|
