Skip to main content


This ACM post by Kode Vicious brings up constraints on modern software imposed by antiquated POSIX compliance notions. The conclusion is we need to work on newer paradigms that are better suited to how computers are built today: with dozens of processors of varying types, multiple levels of caches, very fast storage combined with slower storage etc. I totally get that. I just assume that researchers are working on that and nothing has proved compelling enough to rise to mainstream use. Am I being optimistic in that or were the last big innovations in operating systems and software engineering 30 years ago? #programming #SoftwareEngineering #research #OperatingSystems #posix #unix #linux https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3570921
This entry was edited (1 year ago)

reshared this

Unknown parent

Hank G ☑️
It is pretty astounding that a lot of the "new" things we are doing like functional programming are as old as OOP which itself is older than I am. That isn't necessarily a bad thing it's just fascinating. The big thing a new thing needs to do to displace the old is to be so much substantially better than the previous for it to make sense for there to be a shift. Perhaps we will one day get there. Meanwhile since concurrency is hard his beef with IPC seemed interestingly in the opposite direction of where things seem to be going. It seems more and more systems are going towards things like Isolates/workers/etc. models rather than direct multithreading in order to help eliminate entire classes of bugs. Meanwhile that is essentially harkening back to Erlang and how it did these things starting almost 40 years ago.
in reply to Hank G ☑️

i dont see how posix has *anything* to do with the problems that actually exist and become more pressing in the hw/sw interface space. adding a posix interface to a system does not magically transform its architecture and other interface to something worse. also, calling flash drives super reliable must be some kind of joke...
in reply to stefanct

It is a good point that much of the software we write is at least one abstraction away from the base libraries.
in reply to stefanct

@stefanct yeah, I really could have used a concrete example of the posix limitations he was talking about…