Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Michael S Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:54:56 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 98 Message-ID: <20240826105456.0000150a@yahoo.com> References: <20240825201124.000017a3@yahoo.com> <86msl05ctt.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:54:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dceef2e5747191d705aba7a5796c566a"; logging-data="1908920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ivAT309U3ZoSUrKI9r6rL9OVluFJfMxw=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:DAsufQOs/tve9H03yzS09XcU+AI= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Bytes: 5075 On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:48:14 -0700 Tim Rentsch wrote: > 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. That is nearly always a case in practice, but it does not have to be. I can't give a counterexample, but I can imagine language similar to Pascal that has no records with variants and no procedure Dispose and also hardens few other corners that I currently forgot about. > What are some examples of > "safe HLLs without mandatory automatic memory management"? > The most prominent examples are Ada and Rust. It seems that Zig tries the same, but I was not sufficiently interested to dig deeper. Partly because last time when I tried to play with Zig it refused to install on Wit7 machine. > > 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). I don't like this definition. IMHO, what language does have is at least as important as what it does not have for the purpose of estimating its level. > 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. > Precise definitions of everything are hard. May be, popular == 1st or close second choice for particular sort of programming job? Plus, somehow add popularity points for being used in many fields? > Third amusement: any language that has not yet become popular > has already failed to become popular. > There is also "heir apparent' type - languages that are recognized as not particularly popular now, but believed by many, including press, to become popular in the future. > > 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? I thought, that every reader understood that I meant Ada.