linux-kernel - BC (following up Bit X, Fair Pay, Low Jitter etc)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7a3c701f-aaf7-4707-a5fe-cfd7fc4b6ea6@bit-philosophy.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:32:11 +0100
From: Ywe Cærlyn <ywe@...-philosophy.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: BC (following up Bit X, Fair Pay, Low Jitter etc)

Men and Demons.

I have thought some about programming language.
I think some functions could be hardware accelerated, and more 
instructions could be used. for low jitter (more pr. clock and bandwith 
potential).
(RISC is counterintuitive to high-level paradigms).
BC would be somewhere between B and C and suit this.
C++ simly seems vain, and I think it is academic to know the correct 
developments here, and be with it.

Such as for instance XFS, seems symbolcorrect, very little complaints on 
this, and should be used.

BC also is symbolcorrect for programming. Unix was indeed based on BCPL, 
which again is based on Bit, and binary logic.

Bit also is symbolcorrect for an optimal inner loop. (including context 
switches etc).
X is good for userinterface, and APIs.

Light.