>Dave Wade wrote:
Fortran has an EQUIVALENCE statement, COBOL has redefines. Both allows the
subversion of types at the drop of a hat.
I can think of two examples which were not so much subversion of types
as they were a lack of language flexibility:
(a) Very early in my FORTRAN experience,
On 29 April 2016 at 22:23, Eric Smith wrote:
> More than 95% of my work is in C,
> because that's what my clients demand, so people are usually surprised
> to hear my opinion that C is a terrible choice for almost anything.
I am in an analogous boat. Most of my career has
On 2016-04-30 5:20 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 04/30/2016 02:07 PM, Mouse wrote:
Reading this really gives me the impression that it's time to fork
C. There seems to me to be a need for two different languages, which
I might slightly inaccurately call the one C used to be and the one
it has
On 04/30/2016 04:31 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
> I believe that's what the C99 keyword "restrict" is meant to address.
Closing the barn door after the horses have run off. It's not in C++
and *must* be included by the programmer. I suspect if you take 100 C99
programs, 99 of them will not include
> On Apr 30, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> Those who claim that there's not much difference between C and assembly
>> language have never run into a true CISC machine--or perhaps they rely
>> only on
It was thus said that the Great Chuck Guzis once stated:
> On 04/30/2016 02:07 PM, Mouse wrote:
>
> > Reading this really gives me the impression that it's time to fork
> > C. There seems to me to be a need for two different languages, which
> > I might slightly inaccurately call the one C used
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > In support of this, Iâ??d encourage everyone who works with C to read Chris
> > $
>
> > http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html
> >
On Apr 30, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Mouse wrote:
>
> Reading this really gives me the impression that it's time to fork C.
> There seems to me to be a need for two different languages, which I
> might slightly inaccurately call the one C used to be and the one it
> has
On 04/30/2016 02:07 PM, Mouse wrote:
> Reading this really gives me the impression that it's time to fork
> C. There seems to me to be a need for two different languages, which
> I might slightly inaccurately call the one C used to be and the one
> it has become (and is becoming).
I vividly
> In support of this, Iâ??d encourage everyone who works with C to read Chris $
> http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html
> http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html
>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:28:35PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> >
> > We cannot use the same outdated ideas we used to use for 'C'
> > that we used 40 years ago today. Compilers have improved.
> > Know your tools. And that's all I
On Apr 30, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> We cannot use the same outdated ideas we used to use for 'C'
> that we used 40 years ago today. Compilers have improved.
> Know your tools. And that's all I have said.
In support of this, I’d encourage everyone who works with C
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:53:40AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> > Now on that we furiously agree. One problem has been getting that through
> > to people who insist that C is still a high level assembler and has
> > not changed from
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> Now on that we furiously agree. One problem has been getting that through
> to people who insist that C is still a high level assembler and has
> not changed from the time when it was a hand crafted recursive descent
> LR to the
> On Apr 30, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> Now wait a minute here. C is a very old language. When it was first written
> as a recursive descent compiler, compiler technology was very primitive.
> K style code with primitive compilers pretty much resulted in high level
>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Those who claim that there's not much difference between C and assembly
> language have never run into a true CISC machine--or perhaps they rely
> only on libraries someone else has written.
Now wait a minute here. C is a very old
gt; Subject: Re: Programming language failings [was Re: strangest systems I've
> sent email from]
>
> >> The main thing C has that most other languages don't is *unsafe* data
> >> typing - the ability to subvert the type system at the drop of a
> >> cast, and the pr
On 4/29/16 6:02 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
I would actually argue that C++, Java and C# are not object-oriented
languages. They are languages with syntax that supports object-oriented
programming - note that the original C++ was a preprocessor for a C
compiler.
I'll disagree with this on behalf
>> The main thing C has that most other languages don't is *unsafe*
>> data typing - the ability to subvert the type system at the drop of
>> a cast, and the programming tradition to do this a lot.
> {Sighs.} You really seem to have it out for C.
I didn't write that the double-quoted text, but
On 29 April 2016 at 15:43, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I don't know what people do now.
>
The answer, apparently:
Step 1: Install package manager of choice.
Step 2: Create a blank project using the package manager and Framework
X (which is the "in" thing this week).
Step 3: Slap
I would actually argue that C++, Java and C# are not object-oriented
languages. They are languages with syntax that supports object-oriented
programming - note that the original C++ was a preprocessor for a C
compiler.
Smalltalk, Simula, and more recently languages like Ruby are
object-oriented
Those who claim that there's not much difference between C and assembly
language have never run into a true CISC machine--or perhaps they rely
only on libraries someone else has written.
Writing a true global optimizing compiler that generates code as good as
assembly is a nearly impossible task.
>> I like C for the most part, what you see is what you get.
> Apparently you've never been burned by the way it handles bit fields.
Not that I wrote the double-quoted line above, but...no, I don't think
I have. Certainly not recently enough to remember it. But then, I
don't assume more about
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:36:29PM -0700, Al Kossow wrote:
>
>
> On 4/29/16 1:34 PM, ben wrote:
>
> >> The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid things, it's
> >> actively encouraged. C doesn't just let you aim at your foot, it
> >> defaults to aiming at your foot.
> >>
> > I
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Eric Smith wrote:
The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid things, it's
actively encouraged. C doesn't just let you aim at your foot, it
defaults to aiming at your foot.
I like the title that Holub chose for his book:
"Enough Rope To Shoot Yourself In The
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 22:31 , Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:55PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
>>> C is a lot like that saw - it doesn't have a lot of guards on it, and you
>>> can do stupid
On 4/29/16 1:34 PM, ben wrote:
>> The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid things, it's
>> actively encouraged. C doesn't just let you aim at your foot, it
>> defaults to aiming at your foot.
>>
> I like C for the most part, what you see is what you get.
Apparently you've
On 4/29/2016 2:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
C is a lot like that saw - it doesn't have a lot of guards on it, and you
can do stupid things.
The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid things, it's
actively
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:55PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> > C is a lot like that saw - it doesn't have a lot of guards on it, and you
> > can do stupid things.
>
> The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> C is a lot like that saw - it doesn't have a lot of guards on it, and you
> can do stupid things.
The problem is that C doesn't just allow you to do stupid things, it's
actively encouraged. C doesn't just let you aim at your
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/29/16 12:43 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
>> I don't know what people do now.
>>
>
> Find libraries that other people have written, glue something together, and
> move on to the next project/job.
>
> Then scream
On 4/29/16 12:43 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I don't know what people do now.
>
Find libraries that other people have written, glue something together, and
move on to the next project/job.
Then scream if you try to rebuild it later and the new version of the libraries
didn't maintain backwards
On 04/29/2016 11:59 AM, Ian S. King wrote:
>
> Don't blame the tools - blame an educational system that doesn't
> teach software engineering practice, but just teaches tools. "Hey,
> hold my beer and watch this!" -- Ian
Maybe--I can't say. At a very early stage in my career, I was exposed
to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Mouse wrote:
> > My gripe with C is essentially the same as my grumbles with APL--it's
> > far too easy to write obscure code and not document it.
>
> "There is not now, nor will there ever be, a language in which it's the
> least bit
34 matches
Mail list logo