On 12/20/13 6:58 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013 02:16:05 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> declaimed the following:
2) Even for kernel developers, I believe that systems languages should be
safe by default. You ought to have to explicitly disable (say) bounds
checking in critical sections of code, rather than explicitly enable it.
Or worse, have to program your own bounds checking -- especially if the
compiler is permitted to silently disregard it if you make one tiny
mistake.
I wonder how BLISS falls into that... Have to read the rest of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS (while I had 22 years on VMS, it was
mostly F77, a touch of F90, C, Pascal, and some DCL; but never used BLISS)
Bliss is even lower-level than C. It made the too-consistent choice of
having names mean the same thing on the left-hand side of an assignment
as on the right-hand side. A name meant the address of a variable, so
to access the value of a variable, you had to dereference it with the
dot operator, much like the unary asterisk in C.
C: a = b
Bliss: a = .b
C: a = a + 1
Bliss: a = .a + 1
C: a = *b
Bliss: a = ..b
C: a = &b
Bliss: a = b
It was far too common to forget the dots...
--
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
