Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:48:14 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: <86msl05ctt.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20240825201124.000017a3@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 02:48:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6baed66fa18aad174400126e3461865"; logging-data="2277694"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/b6uGvwf+zM0eI/SPyQTUP/orRHiIhws=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZmHVc4CLCEwEHmfGHV5Lqn77GZA= sha1:XVlR9/fUr7cgFIJwLs3HiFakhdQ= Bytes: 3710 Michael S writes: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 18:36:46 +0200 > Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> On 24.08.2024 20:27, Bart wrote: >> >>> On 24/08/2024 19:11, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> >>>> I guess C++ is used much more often because you're multiple times >>>> more produdtive than with C. And programming in C++ is a magnitude >>>> less error-prone. >>> >>> C++ incorporates most of C. So someone can write 'C++' code but can >>> still have most of the same problems as C. >> >> It's true that C++ decided to inherit unsafe C designs as C being >> sort of its base. But a sophisticated programmer would knowingly >> avoid the unsafe parts and use the existing safer C++ constructs. >> Only that a language allows that you *can* write bad code doesn't >> mean you cannot avoid the problems. Of course it would have been >> (IMO) better if the unsafe parts were replaced or left out, but >> there were portability consideration in C++'s design. >> >> >>> [...] > > Safe HLLs without mandatory automatic memory management I'm not sure what you mean by this description. Do you mean languages that are otherwise unsafe but have a safe subset? If not that then please elaborate. What are some examples of "safe HLLs without mandatory automatic memory management"? > tend to fall > into two categories: > 1. Those that already failed to become popular > 2. Those for which it will happen soon It's been amusing reading a discussion of which languages are or are not high level, without anyone offering a definition of what the term means. Wikipedia says, roughly, that a high-level language is one that doesn't provide machine-level access (and IMO that is a reasonable characterization). Of course no distinction along these lines is black and white - almost all languages have a loophole or two - but I expect there is general agreement about which languages clearly fail that test. In particular, any language that offers easy access to raw memory addresses (and both C and C++ certainly do), is not a high-level language in the Wikipedia sense. Second amusement: using the term popular without giving any kind of a metric that measures popularity. Third amusement: any language that has not yet become popular has already failed to become popular. > That despite at least one language in the 1st category being > pretty well designed, if more than a little over-engineered. Please, don't keep us in suspense. To what language do you refer?