Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:13:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <vai2i6$2fns2$2@dont-email.me>
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> <86msl05ctt.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:13:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebcc4e086173f1de784cfcef8522513a";
	logging-data="2613122"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OAN1bCZqLtHLAsD8Vb5mm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q41pygQcPE4WRGqrzlaAclylp9A=
In-Reply-To: <86msl05ctt.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3986

On 26/08/2024 01:48, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> 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.

So, which language do you think is higher level, C++ or Python? Where 
might Lisp fit in, or OCaml?

Language 'level' is a linear concept, but the various characteristics of 
languages are such that there is really a multidimensional gamut.

But among 'systems languages' (something else that needs defining as so 
many are claiming they are in that category), I think most would agree 
that C is near the bottom, but I don't think that C++ is that much 
higher, given how much cruft you still have to write to get anything done.