Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.
If the whole world focused and used just 1 OS for every system for a long enough time line, I think it would evolve fast enough to reach a point of perfection, where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind. I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it. Eventually the best way to do everything an OS needs to do would be found; it would be faster if there was only 1 OS to work with to reach that point.
I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.
I’ve been writing code in one form or another for some 30 years now, and my observation so far has been the exact opposite: there are many problems in programming for which there is no one clearly superior solution, even in theory. Just like life in general, programming is full of trade-offs, compromises, and diminishing returns.
where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind
this in itself is straight up impossible to know or prove. when can you say your program has no vulnerabilities? ever hear of zerodays? finding the best way to do everything in software will never be found or stay constant either.
Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.
If the whole world focused and used just 1 OS for every system for a long enough time line, I think it would evolve fast enough to reach a point of perfection, where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind. I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it. Eventually the best way to do everything an OS needs to do would be found; it would be faster if there was only 1 OS to work with to reach that point.
I’ve been writing code in one form or another for some 30 years now, and my observation so far has been the exact opposite: there are many problems in programming for which there is no one clearly superior solution, even in theory. Just like life in general, programming is full of trade-offs, compromises, and diminishing returns.
this in itself is straight up impossible to know or prove. when can you say your program has no vulnerabilities? ever hear of zerodays? finding the best way to do everything in software will never be found or stay constant either.
Must be nice to be so ignorant…
Language has many ways of expressing the same thing, is there an objectively best way to do it?
Is that sentence the best way to ask that question?