Re: PL/I string representations (was Re: To Richard Heathfield: enough's enough)

From: Ian Woods (newspub2_at_wuggyNOCAPS.org)
Date: 12/31/03 

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:57:17 +0000 (UTC)

spinoza1111@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in
news:f5dda427.0312301616.18ef9a05@posting.google.com:

<snip>

> The promoted language C is out of date because C is not a real high
> level language. It is a low-level assembler language written in a high
> level notation. For this reason, except in those missions that are
> speed critical, C is out of date owing to hardware speeds.
>
> Few missions are speed critical, no matter what programmers may
> imagine, for hardware speeds are sufficiently high, and optimizing
> compilers are available.

Hardware speed often equates to financial cost. Over time, the hardware
in any domain may or may not actually get faster.

Most computers on the planet are not as powerful, upgraded as often or
even in the same class as device as a desktop computer. Whilst you may
have oodles of processing power to run a word processor, spreadsheet app,
or even video editing on a modern desktop machine it is important to
remember that the majority of computers are not even a thousandth as
fast.

Efficiency is extremely important in certain arenas... in fact, any arena
where you don't have a relatively huge amount of processing resources to
use. In some cases, efficiency is important because computing resources
are scarce because current high-end computers aren't fast compared to the
complexity of the problem. In others, the most frequently occuring, is
that a computer fast enough to solve the problem and no faster is
required since additional speed involves additional cost.

C's very nature makes it suited to many kinds of problems in these
arenas, and although there are some challengers they aren't yet widely
accepted or supported. Obviously, Mr. Nilges might want to retell the
tale about his 'kid' IIRC and his language choices.

Most 'missions' in actual use today are speed critical - no matter what
people who predominantly believe computers are almost exclusively big
boxes which warm the room and take up most of a desk think.

> The important remaining mission is avoidance
> of quadratic complexity which is possible in a high level language and
> not avoided in the use of C (as Mr. Nilges has demonstrated to us,
> more or less per accidens it is true.)

What Mr. Nilges has demonstrated to us and has stated certain facts:

o He used strlen in the loop condition for the sake of readability.
o He knows that doing so gives horrible performance compared to other
trivially different code.

These facts demonstrate that Mr. Nilges hasn't shown that avoiding
(needless) quadratic complexity is unavoidable in C, but that he
explicitly chose to forsake avoiding it for the sake of readability.

Obviously, the number of posts made by C programmers noting the fact that
this choice was made makes it clear that C programmers can and do avoid
(needless) quadratic complexity.
 
> Furthermore, arguments for the continuing viability of C discourage
> programmers in America from retraining in in-demand languages.

Why only Americans? Sounds to me like a veiled comment on the intellect
of American programmers if they are singled out as the only people
discouraged from learning in demand languages by such 'arguments'.

> They
> then seek employment in C and fail to find it as the positions migrate
> to the coral strand wherein programmers train in modern languages.

Any sane programmer will tell you, whether or not that person is a C
programmer, that knowing only one language and relying upon it for all
time - or even for employment for all time - is a bad idea. This
certainly doesn't mean that you should only learn languages which are
'in-demand', nor does it mean that any advocated language is the only
tool for all jobs. Afterall, not all people program for money - many
program for fun and some happen to also get paid for it.
 
<snip>

Ian Woods

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CollabRx seeks brilliant engineers for an excellent e-science adventure
    ... belief that lisp programmers are smarter/better. ... Java or PHP programmers. ... a type of language that attracts a personality that meets my perceptions ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Question concerning object-oriented programming
    ... programming language, not his. ... there has usually been a toString. ... I know it's "unrealistic" to expect actual programmers to do this, ... tell me what a dog is. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Language X, not Forth ?
    ... As you become more familiar with a language, it's readability is a function of how much care the programmer took to make it more readable. ... The use of non-readable graphics characters doesn't help FORTH to ... All programmers I know use one sort or another to indent or highlight control flow. ... Therefore, I just don't do this kind of crazy things like juggling around with many stack elements. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
    ... with enforcing that "shouldn't" in the language itself? ... In Python, direct access to pointers is a MUST NOT. ... where you are allowed to mess with the implementation. ... human assembly language programmers? ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: FORTH levels
    ... Most working on a collaborative project do not choose the programming language they are using: it is thrust upon them by the needs of the collaboration. ... When Iverson and Hui came up with J-- in part to remove APL's special character set and make it more "user friendly" not much of a community formed around it. ... And people who are by not by any reasonable stretch of the term "programmers" seem to take to Perl. ... But RPN does not require a visible stack, any more than any language requires a visible stack to rebuild its semantic trees from its flat expression. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)