Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:17:04 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <20250212081704.00003ce1@gmail.com>
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me>
	<vl8otk$3splv$3@dont-email.me>
	<vl8qm7$3u6t2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vl93dl$3vkun$1@dont-email.me>
	<vl9449$3vo6h$3@dont-email.me>
	<vl9aov$pp7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vla4hr$5n4v$1@dont-email.me>
	<vlblqj$harb$1@dont-email.me>
	<lttopaFoh2cU8@mid.individual.net>
	<vle8uk$12sii$2@dont-email.me>
	<c686fb74-4fac-0809-7005-417c76ee0e3b@example.net>
	<nbReP.633803$oR74.271654@fx16.iad>
	<NnVeP.44028$vfee.11890@fx45.iad>
	<vo6ubb$3ue2q$2@dont-email.me>
	<RhOdnY5Kb8vulDr6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<vo7lp6$25uo$2@dont-email.me>
	<655acbf6-05e5-69ff-8a44-9f7075aafa2e@example.net>
	<ddNpP.567620$iNI.244105@fx14.iad>
	<m0pqs3ForauU2@mid.individual.net>
	<g9qcnUmy1pxdrTX6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<m0r59mFrbnU1@mid.individual.net>
	<yn0qP.587031$iNI.359829@fx14.iad>
	<VtWdnaJY5fz99zT6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<20250210093054.00001375@gmail.com>
	<vofgo6$1p8fn$1@dont-email.me>
	<KwSdnd_yRPwhvjH6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:17:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fffcf245ee17c3432c24c991a40e9a2a";
	logging-data="2493588"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LQ8C1PoU0nCr3m2CX3egaYbOb8Atprds="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vv1reiqEh+rRqW/rEtfGjdcLOE0=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3034

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 23:29:43 -0500
"WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Nothing wrong, or unique, about fixed-size arrays. You don't want
> them for some stuff, do want them for other stuff. CAN elim a lot of
> range-checking code.

Nothing wrong with fixed-size arrays as a general concept, no. Treating
the size as *part of the type specification* so that passing ARRAY
[1..15] OF CHAR to a function expecting ARRAY [1..10] OF CHAR yields a
type mismatch is what's utterly demented; a true Wirth original, that.

I have never yet heard a sensible case made for a language where array
sizes are known, but no FOR EACH IN (x) construct is provided. Doing it
C's way at least offers you flexibility and performance in exchange for
the risk of shooting yourself in the foot; offering a way to iterate
transparently across arrays of arbitrary size at least gives you safety
and convenience in exchange for the performance penalty of bounds-
checking. Wirth's approach offers the worst of both worlds, for no
material gain whatsoever - absolutely bonkers.