On 12/26/2017 3:59 PM, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++ compiler, with -Wall.
It did not detect the obvious error.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
That's not mechanic
On 12/26/2017 4:18 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
All of which brings us full circle: when it comes to programming
languages and software development, it is all about advocacy,
prejudice, and belief, there is very, very little science happening –
and most of the science that is happening is in the psyc
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 19:34:35 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
Rust is an example of a language that got it right.
Rust got it right for a single, very specialized use case. The
cost is that the language is of interest to the tiny fraction of
programmers for whom that use case is relevan
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 15:53:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Sadly I cannot see either of these happening. There is already
too much to pack in to an undergraduate CS (*) course even if
first programming and simple algorithms moves out into
pre-university education – as has now happened
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 16:50:54 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Ok I'll bite. Can you recommend me some reasonable easy
literature. Something you can read in free time when you
travel, not study. Social interactions where always
interesting for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civiliza
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:56:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/26/2017 3:54 AM, codephantom wrote:
I simply have to 'forget' to annotate with @safe
Not annotating with @safe is mechanically checkable as well.
If I were trying to create a marketing campaign for D, as being a
safe l
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++
compiler, with -Wall. It did not detect the obvious error.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
On 12/26/2017 3:41 PM, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
While exploring quirks of floating-point values, as well as C/C++/D convenience
with them, I stumbled on, in essence, the following (DMD32 on Windows):
The issue is really with the DMC++ C runtime library, as that is what Phobos
relies on for floatin
While exploring quirks of floating-point values, as well as
C/C++/D convenience with them, I stumbled on, in essence, the
following (DMD32 on Windows):
void main ()
{
import std.stdio : writefln;
double x = 128.0;// same for real or float
writefln ("%.20a", x); // 0x1.
On 12/26/2017 12:40 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
This is self evident. However, this was not the point of my post. My point was
to refute your statement that no C programmer would care about exceptions. If
what you say is true, how comes SEH was used so intensively on Windows by C
programmers , and
On 12/26/2017 3:54 AM, codephantom wrote:
I simply have to 'forget' to annotate with @safe
Not annotating with @safe is mechanically checkable as well.
On 12/26/2017 1:21 AM, codephantom wrote:
My C/C++ code can be 'mechanically' checked too.. and those checks are better
than they've even been, and getting better.
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++ compiler, with -Wall. It
did not detect the obvious error.
On 12/26/2017 1:03 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the module can be
mechanically checked, over one million devs working on a codebase.
The whole point of Walter argumentation is 'mechanically'.
That's right. C++ is based on faith in the progra
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 11:18:58 UTC, Joakim wrote:
IOW, it's not a matter of what D got wrong that it needs
betterC but what those old languages got wrong that D must
adapt to, because of all the old C/C++ code out there.
Rust is an example of a language that got it right. It is
inh
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 16:40 +, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> Excuse me, since I don't really follow the "raise and fall " of
> new languages. Is really Rust rising and shining ? Tiobe (for all
> it's flows) put it on 0.530 index, just *below* ADA (great
> language, for SW en
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 15:53:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
There also needs to be much greater education everywhere about
socio- technical systems. To be honest I'd prioritise this over
programming language design since programmers can always use
crap languages, but can they build th
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 13:54:09 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
With C/C++ you simply can't do it anything similar, today (and,
IMHO, neither tomorrow): the rising of Rust is here to tell us
exactly that.
/Paolo
Excuse me, since I don't really follow the "raise and fall " of
new l
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 12:26 +, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> I genuinely believe, that it is psychological science that will
> play the most important role in terms of what programming
> languages of the future will look like.
>
> psychological studies should be integrated in
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 13:27:38 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 03:31:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 18:21:33 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
A tool (call it depend - heh) to automate that would be
awesome. For example, this run would make
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 11:54:12 UTC, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 10:00:25 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
IMHO, the lost list of vulnerability in code shipped by "first
class enterprises" is just crying out that C/C++ is not
mechanically checkable.
And we are talkin
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 03:31:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 18:21:33 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/15/2017 02:10 PM, Seb wrote:
[...]
Dmitry wrote a nice PR for that, and I wrote two:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5942
https://github.com/dlan
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 22:48:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 04:26:52PM +, Piotr Klos via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 03:23:33 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
> If you have a function with a return type listed as `auto`,
> please thoroughly descr
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 12:18:09 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
All of which brings us full circle: when it comes to
programming languages and software development, it is all about
advocacy, prejudice, and belief, there is very, very little
science happening – and most of the science that
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 08:18 +, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> I believe in it in the sense that it can be used to stir powerful
> social forces to serve propaganda. No language should be without
> propaganda, since adoption will most likely be more modulated by
> social facto
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 10:00:25 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
IMHO, the lost list of vulnerability in code shipped by "first
class enterprises" is just crying out that C/C++ is not
mechanically checkable.
And we are talking about company that can literally spend an
Everest of money on t
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 22:48:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
While I agree that all template parameters ought to be
documented and all auto return types thoroughly described, I
disagree with explicit naming of auto return types. The whole
point of auto return types is to return an *opaque* ty
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 09:21:20 UTC, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 09:03:31 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the
module can be mechanically checked, over one million devs
working on a codebase.
The whole point of
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 09:03:31 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the module
can be mechanically checked, over one million devs working on a
codebase.
The whole point of Walter argumentation is 'mechanically'.
/Paolo
My C/C++ code c
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 07:01:16 UTC, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 04:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Only if someone considers this as fixed:
int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
int bar(int i) { return foo(&i); }
clang++ -c test.cpp -Wall
good examp
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 07:33:18 UTC, Mark wrote:
Then whoever is using your code (you?) will find that out when
they call your functions from a @safe function.
And if they forget to annotate their so called 'safe' function
with @safe...what happens then?
Comparing the 'memory safe
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 20:36:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can use setjmp/longjmp in betterC. After all, they are just
library functions.
This is self evident. However, this was not the point of my post.
My point was to refute your statement that no C programmer would
care about
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 10:20:44 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
One persons opinion is irrelevant, unless you believe in
advocacy research.
I believe in it in the sense that it can be used to stir powerful
social forces to serve propaganda. No language should be without
propaganda, sin
32 matches
Mail list logo
