Re: Multi Dimensional Array Reallocation ?


"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:de0q2p$k2i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> I much prefer to let the program make the decisions (which can only be
done
> at runtime). You sound like a typical dumbass programmer who thinks he
knows
> what's best for the user not knowing a thing about his system or
environment
> or requirements or preferences.

Its clear to me that you have absolutely no idea how to design and construct
code that is flexible and adaptable while at the same time requires a
minimum amount of runtime checking. Since you seem to believe that if you
can't imagine it, it can't be possible, I won't bother to say more on that
subject.

> > The points you missed are
> > a) your idea lacks serious merit,
>
> On the contrary it is you who doesn't recgonize it's value because you
> believe everything can be done at compile time, which is utternonsense.
The
> world isn't static, it's dynamic and always changing. I like programs
which
> are flexible and can change with it. That might not be interesting for
> people who want to make money etc... but it is interesting for people like
> me who want their software to last and work for as long as possible ;)

I've never said that everything can be done at compile time. Further, just
because something is dynamic doesn't mean that it can't be verifified at
compile time. As an analog, consider humans. Their dna is set at conception,
i.e. compile time. Runtime modification of dna typically generates an error
condition.

> > c) contributes a great deal to the difficulty of delivering stable
and
> > bug free code,
>
> On the contrary, it's again you who fails to see it's worth.

A matter of opinion, and since you have consistently failed to present any
fact based arguments to support your opinion, I won't bother extending the
discussion.

> > d) contributes more man hours to maintenance tasks,
>
> On the contrary, finds bugs faster than your current code since your
current
> code can't even detect it.

I don't understand how you have reached such a conclusion and you have
failed to explain yourself.

> > e) doesn't blend well into the exiting language structure,
>
> No changes needed at all. At worst just a little no big deal.

Perhaps you would like to review your prior posts.

> > g) would make Delphi programs run slower,
>
> Nope, only during debug, unless you love it and leave it on at runtime and
> even then it won't be too bad ;)

You really are either terribly stupid or just don't understand what you are
suggesting. Execution of every reference to a class identifier, in your
environment, would require a symbol table lookup and then a type check.
Neither of these are currently required in a Delphi program. To be clear

for i := 0 to 999 do
x.Link := Something;

would generate 1,000 lookups of the identifier <instance referenced by
X>.Link, and 1,000 checks that Something has the same type as the identified
Link. In Delphi both the lookup and typecheck are done once, at compile
time. (In fact, since the assignment is potentially loop invariant, it might
be optimized out of the loop.) If executing addition code doesn't make a
program run slower, what does?

> > j) is as vulnerable as With.
>
> ???

Exactly, you don't even understand the implications or impact of what you
are suggesting. So you are unable to intelligently argue its worth.

> The problems you can find at compile time are also 0.0001% of the
problems.

Not in programs I write. By accepting the Delphi language structure, and
working with it, I'm able to produce much more reliable code.

> I have lot's of programming experience something which I doubt you have
> seeing the bullshit in this post ;)

You are entitled to your opinion. Let me set your mind at rest on my
programming experience. I've been authoring software for more than 20 years,
on a variety of platforms, using a number of different languages and
development environments. I have some computer science education and a
specific interest in formal languages and compiler construction. I've also
taught a couple of programming languages at the university level.

You are generally an interesting troll, but once an argument descends to the
level of your last post, there usually isn't any point in continuing.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OOP and memory management
    ... if the ability to catch some errors at compile time ... > languages; they are very annoying and they don't exist in strongly typed ... > trade off or you can be blinded by typical language adherence fanatacism. ... between catching all type errors at compile time, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: evaluating a string as an expression
    ... to evaluate a string as an expression and I ... The problem here is the difference between compile time and runtime. ... interpreter (which most scripting languages such as ColdFusion, PHP, Perl ... give you access to fields on objects and not local variables. ...
    (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
  • Re: Using a string as a variable name
    ... construction only works in an interpreted language ... ... resolution should be compile time ... ... Only interpreted languages would be able to do this, ... global object only works for global variables, ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.jscript)
  • Re: Multi Dimensional Array Reallocation ?
    ... Second of all Bruce Roberts' example proved that he uses runtime ... takes advantage of Delphi's compile time checking. ... g) would make Delphi programs run slower, ... at compile time is probably 0.0001% of the cost of errors detected at ...
    (alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi)
  • Re: How can my software know when a LX200 has finished slewing?
    ... But strongly typed languages are much better when lives are at stake or for mission critical systems. ... Far better to have programmers typos and common errors detected at compile time than turn it into code that is guaranteed to crash in obscure ways later. ... Ultra high reliability software now has to use a cunning subset of the Ada language. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)