> This is only software I have ever seen that actually got smaller over time.
I agree, this is admirable!
Even if it is under different names (which I think is a far better approach), Sustrik does this too: http://250bpm.com/blog:50 He went from AMPQ (not his own creation) -> ZeroMQ -> nanomsg -> Libmill (essentially Go in C/UNIX style)
Also, OpenBSD comes to mind (LibreSSL for example).
Libmill/Libdill (go coroutines) are not on the AMPQ->ZeroMQ->Crossroads->Nanomsg (socket abstraction) path ; in fact, they have essentially nothing in common except sustrik.
I wish you'd actually read the article before shooting your mouth off with a Well Actually. FTA:
> Next one: nanomsg. An alternative to ZeroMQ.
In comments:
> How would you split nanomsg, then?
> [...] 2. coroutine library, e.g. libtask, libmill [...]
Not to mention that this is obvious if you understand what the core of each thing is in terms of capabilities. If you are gonna be the "technically..." guy, at least do it right.
It's about decomposing things, which is the essence of good design, and - supposedly - the UNIX philosophy at its heart.
As an actual user of ZeroMQ, nanomsg and dabbler of libdill, I assure you I know what I am talking about. Libdill/libmill is NOT on the same arch. It could be used to implement the next generation of zeromq/nanomsg, but it does not, in fact, provide any functionality that these provide today - it would be an internal implementation detail if sustrik followed through on that comment. But it would not be a nanomsg rewrite, likely something completely new - nanomsg has been rewritten, several times in several ways, by Garret D'amore who has taken over. D'amore explicitly rejected using e.g. libuv (mentioned in that comment) as a basis for a nanomsg rewrite. There's an "uncertainty" principle at work here - separating of concerns generates dependencies which in the grand scheme of things are not necessarily good.
In fact, one of D'amore's rewrites used native OS threads in lieu of a co-routine library, which worked perfectly well on FreeBSD and Solaris, and abysmally on all other OSses. The main reason to use a coroutine library in a messaging library is actually that the underlying OS threads implementations scale so badly on most modern systems.
Commenting like this will get you banned on HN regardless of how much you know or how right you are. Please reread the site guidelines (linked at bottom of every HN page) and take them to heart from now on.
Enjoyed the blog post from Sustrik. I also found Hintjens' work in line with my own sensibilities, e.g., his libero code generator. That is perhaps a good example of "finished" software.
Whenever I have suggested on HN that there is such a thing as "finished" software that is free of serious bugs, I get some resistance. There is a consistent knee-jerk reaction citing the same tired, old meme, "All software has bugs", and "Software is never finished."
Sustrik's post proves I am not the only one perplexed by this strange belief that no software is ever finished.
IMO, it is not a question of being infallibile or being available to fix bugs. The point is that there are programs that are not continuously growing in size and complexity. They are not "dead". They are "finished".
As for OpenBSD, certainly some programs I would consider "finished" but overall the size of the kernel and base distribution are in fact growing. Not only new drivers, but new programs and new libraries continue to be added. More code means more probability for bugs and vulnerabilties.
Anyway, less code, more terse syntax means it can be easier to find problems. Not everyone will agree with this of course. But I agree with Whitney and others. Less code makes it easier for me.
> There is a consistent knee-jerk reaction citing the same tired, old meme, "All software has bugs", and "Software is never finished."
It's not as much of a meme as fairly good heuristics. Most software has bugs, or depend on other pieces of software who have bugs. Most software can be improved or integrate with new technologies that weren't prevalent a few years ago. If software is good, it generally has a solid user base (relative to its target audience), and people will ask for tweaks and features--author can rightfully reject most of them, but it's a rare thing that absolutely none of them merits to be accepted.
So, when you discover a project that might be useful to you but you never heard of it and it's been inactive for years, I still believe it's quite a good rule of thumb to be leery before committing serious time and efforts to using it in anger. Which doesn't mean that counter-examples don't exist, naturally.
I tend to think it's more about people using languages that fail to correctly provide enough assurances about how they function in all cases that assumptions have to be made in practical use, and those assumptions end up being wrong in odd, minute ways, or on new platforms with slightly different behaviors, or after compiler writers decide they want to take advantage of some ambiguity for the sake of performance.
When someone trying your software with a newer compiler or a newer CPU or a slightly different architecture than you wrote it on and it doesn't work right, it's easy to come away thinking programs are never "done".
I agree, this is admirable!
Even if it is under different names (which I think is a far better approach), Sustrik does this too: http://250bpm.com/blog:50 He went from AMPQ (not his own creation) -> ZeroMQ -> nanomsg -> Libmill (essentially Go in C/UNIX style)
Also, OpenBSD comes to mind (LibreSSL for example).