Ian Bruene via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>:
> On 3/2/19 9:42 AM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> > REFCLOCKD benefits way down, cost almost unchanged. Every time I model
> > this in my head the same answer comes out: bad idea. I think we have
> > better complexity-reduction attacks available, like translating the
> > whole thing to Go to get rid of a lot of the resource-management hair
> > in the C code. But maybe you can change my mind?
>
> The Go translation has by far the best chance of getting someone familiar
> enough with that seam to be able to the come back after the translation and
> fix it. After fixing the separation cost will drop.
I agree this is probably true.
I meant to mention that there are actually *two* big benefits in prospect from
a Go port. The obvious one is being able to junk a lot of fiddly, error-prone
C memory-management stuff.
The less obvious one is maps. Oh dear Goddess, maps! So much C code, in this
suite and elsewhere, is boilerplate reinventing endless ways to look up things
by name. I think we might drop as much LOC due to first-class maps as we will
due to being able to ditch malloc/free.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
