Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:25:22 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <81c57fb20a4006e7e5b473f886351964@www.novabbs.org>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me> <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org> <vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me> <vb3smg$1ta6s$1@dont-email.me> <vb4q5o$12ukk$3@dont-email.me> <vb6a16$38aj5$1@dont-email.me> <jwv8qw8o7zg.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <vb7q5q$3f6cg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="749665"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$OiYhdoi66alED5zJnNDWaeshFVBZozupAzJlztrx81/G8YdHH1ziK
Bytes: 2786
Lines: 31

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:05:14 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> schrieb:
>>> My impression - based on hearsay for Rust as I have no experience - is
>>> that
>>> the key point of Rust is memory "safety".  I use scare-quotes here,
>>> since it
>>> is simply about correct use of dynamic memory and buffers.
>>>
>>> It is entirely possible to have correct use of memory in C,
>>
>> If you look at the evolution of programming languages, "higher-level"
>> doesn't mean "you can do more stuff".  On the contrary, making
>> a language "higher-level" means deciding what it is we want to make
>> harder or even impossible.
>
> Really?
>
> I thought Fortran was higher level than C, and you can do a lot
> more things in Fortran than in C.

Fortran has a memory model where if address aliasing occurs it is
the programmers fault, C has the contrapositive.

Given the Fortran library, it is easy to write in C what could be
written in Fortran--mostly because Fortran programmers use their
library instead of trying to circumvent it at every step.

> Or rather, Fortran allows you to do things which are possible,
> but very cumbersome, in C.  Both are Turing complete, after all.

Turing complete does not take memory order into account.