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 <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
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: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com> <vad7ns$1g27b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vad8lr$1fv5u$1@dont-email.me> <vafmiv$202ef$1@dont-email.me> <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 <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 18:36:46 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> 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?