Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:41:21 +0000 Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy References: <655acbf6-05e5-69ff-8a44-9f7075aafa2e@example.net> <20250210093054.00001375@gmail.com> <20250212081704.00003ce1@gmail.com> <20250212145430.00001040@gmail.com> From: "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" Organization: WokieSux Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:41:23 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <6fqdnVeJects6jD6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@earthlink.com> Lines: 43 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97 X-Trace: sv3-Tl1SsZR+Q9v1LTAmqi1gEx0v69VV3uS+lKwcK2NbeJ/k7VKwmbAsBusPpYIy73Ty7JCVvKcmA1W0mpN!j42gWdEAaFRmEO9zIx0sJ8rVM1Euar4AO9oju8DCQ99SYgGOCo3M7Xax4UcqWvgzdcCMN4dL1C/e!Xwojvib2VA64bj0jNuDY X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4132 On 2/12/25 11:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 12/02/2025 22:54, John Ames wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:09:18 -0500 >> "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" wrote: >> >>> As for including size info in arrays ... makes good sense to me. EZ >>> to know what you're dealing with. Liked the old short-strings in >>> Turbo - the first byte was the string length. >> >> There's definitely an argument to be made for including bounds info as >> part of the array structure. There's no argument (that I've ever heard) >> to be made for making it part of the *type specification.* Any line of >> reasoning that says a carton of six eggs and a carton of twelve eggs >> are somehow different *kinds* of objects and their contents incomparable >> is fundamentally deranged. >> > The problem with languages designed to let stupid people program safely > is that as in the case with all highest common factor legislation, the > majority suffers to protect the few idiots from themselves. But IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY ??? There have always been some idiots in programming/development. That percentage, for a number of reasons, seems to have steeply increased. Almost ALL of western economies absolutely DEPEND on the net/cloud/systems in order to function - commerce, banking, the infrastructure, transport, energy, supply/demand, mil and security - ALL of it. As it appears very difficult to weed out the idiots, and years to create a new class of Competent, the second tier approach is to COPE with them. Alas this means much more 'idiot-proof' computer languages/systems no matter the cost/hassle to the competent fraction. Nobody wants to hear this, but Real is Real. As for including type info - limits and more - the effective overhead in these days of gigabit flow and GHz multicore chips is negligible. As such I'd say to include it one way or another.