Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: A flawless model is all the basics.
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:24:28 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <86c09681740469acc1adeccdce7f59e62cafbd5e.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b0f7c89e8f5e518444ded6ff3f149827";
	logging-data="2309768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oPc6Nj7Q6o4imhYxrUtK6"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5uy3yB9LWFy4Mq+MQXMzMKYoH1g=
Bytes: 3556

> https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/ClassGuidelines.tx=
t/download
> ... OO can have many meaning. I took the object to mean the basic entity =
of the
> programming model. The concept of object, as a foundmental concept, has t=
o be
> solid, practical and easily usable. Otherwise, more codes and efforts wil=
l be
> needed latter to fix it making the original goal, practically, a lie.
> IOW, (nearly) a flawless model is all the basics...
>
> After 25 years, I feel the idea of OO is lost. Something not right with O=
O?
> I'd rather believe the idea of OO being not followed or addressed is the =
culprit.
>
>

General rule of the element of a programming language:
If too much effort is spent in figuring out what keywords/pseudo-directive
should be in the program. Something is wrong. E.g.

T* a=3Db;

The target is just "mov a,b", anything more may be considered redundant and
inefficient. Now we have const, constexpr,
volatile/atomic,promotion/narrowing,mutable,modifier/attr..., and maybe isn=
ull,
ownership,...) to consider in programming "mov a,b" for "T a=3Db".

Why not using assembly? Well, after not much tries, we found what we wanted=
 was
not much different from C, but with something compromised (e.g, stack,...),
and mostly, some classified as hardware 'specifics' (ironically, difference=
s=20
are the reason different hardwares exist. we use new hardware because it ha=
s something new).

Does it have to be C, afterall hardware can be redesigned to align with hig=
h
level languages? Answer: At least we don't have idea of any machine that ca=
n
exceed Turing Machine (quantum computing is just faster in some aspect).
Assembly,C is pretty much close to the description of TM...

In this stage, I would say C is desirable is because it is close to human
natural language of which the feature is recursion,modifiers in 'sentence' =
(not list of instructions):
https://study.com/academy/lesson/noam-chomsky-on-language-theories-lesson-q=
uiz.html
.... all languages have formal universals and principles in common, with spe=
cific options and limits
for variation in grammar and features between languages...

But too close to natural language should not be the goal because uncertaint=
y
should and must exist in human language... So the language of a model.

I had a initial test: https://sourceforge.net/projects/symbcomp/
I feel programming language (C/C++) can do more, and can even be better
targeting as the foundation of math/logic. Reason: it models the real thing=
,
better than math. and logic.