Re: Increasing efficiency in C

From: Roc (nospam_at_aqssys.com)
Date: 03/05/04 

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:54:54 -0600

"Mike Wahler" <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:ek52c.22986$aT1.9809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
> news:c2ajah$t8a$1@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr...
> >
> > Today's fast machines provide
> > power for a new and widespread way of developing,
> > in scales much bigger than before.
>
> But, (and I think this is essentially the crux of my
> objections to your ideas about 'safetifying' C strings):
>
> Trying to "bulletproof" everything imo encourages
> mindlessness. *Not Good* for a programmer. This
> should be certainly implemented as much as possible
> at the end-user level, by programmers who *think*.
> Even the C++ 'std::string' (as well as the language
> itself) that I mentioned can be abused. It *is* imo
> 'safer' but not bulletproof, nor can it ever be.
>
> It's this recent trend (that I see) in languages to obviate
> the need to think, that I find very disquieting.

A similar discussion arises at my work every so often. Here, an infatuation
among some .NET programmers with the Intermediate Language are boldly saying
to "old-timers" (such as myself; someone who programs in C, or C++, or
<insert 'old' language here>) that it will be /unreasonable/ to program in
'old' languages once more IL compilers come out. I think their lofty idea
revolves around performance gains from a machine-code compiled language will
be moot when balanced against the presumptions: (a) machines/devices by then
will be so much faster than the majority of people who use them; and (b)
development cycles are only getting shorter.

I share your concern, Mike. Is it "making the language easier", or is it
"protection from a lazy programmer"? To quote one programmer, "...you don't
need to program anything anymore - it's all written for you. You just need
to find the right calls to make."

Eeesh. Guess I'm going to have to go find a microwave to program... A PC
will be too 'advanced' for me to program...

Now if only I can figure out what a free-standing environment is! <smirk>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol
    ... machines at the time were the IBM 7090 and similar 7040. ... the 14xx line had grown to become the dominant business computer. ... Programmers won't put up with cryptic languages like C++ ... They'll use a language they can understand at a glance. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: What does the future of computing hold?
    ... sophisticated views about boiling language down or not. ... deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think, ... We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at ... For ethical reasons, you cannot grow human babies to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: What does the future of computing hold?
    ... sophisticated views about boiling language down or not. ... deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think, ... We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at ... humans are. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Is the Curt net a kind of decision tree?
    ... eye of the human beholder here, ... This is how we use language to gain all our understanding of ... Gravity is in the eye of the beholder. ... will best help us solve the problem of building intelligent machines. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: I wonder what the "Science" is in this Newsgroup
    ... I expanded a French word into English when I called Standford ... my definition of language contradicts your opinion ... Bacteria talk, trees talk, machines won't talk. ...
    (sci.lang)