Why is python not written in C++ ?
in [Python]
|
From: sturlamolden on 2 Aug 2010 19:28 On 3 Aug, 01:14, Martin Gregorie <mar...(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > Bottom line: All this would still have happened regardless of the > programming language used. I am quite sure C and Fortran makes it unlikely for an unhandled exception to trigger the autodestruct sequence. But it's nice to know when flying that modern avionics is programmed in a language where this is possible. ;)
From: Mark Lawrence on 2 Aug 2010 19:31 On 03/08/2010 00:03, Aahz wrote: > In article<f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994feb0b(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > Peter<peter.milliken(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence<breamore...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote: >>> >>> I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I >>> read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up >>> in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. >> >> With you there Mark - IMO C++ is an abortion that should never have >> seen the light of day. The idea of experimenting with creating an OO >> language by extending C wasn't such a bad idea for a "play thing" (by >> Stroustrop) but the fact that it somehow escaped from the Lab and >> people picked it up and ran with it on a commercial basis is just >> plain wrong! > > http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/May/stroustrup.html Haven't been able to read this properly as the stomach has been shaking too much to control the mouse and/or arrow keys/page up/down etc. Hum, marks out of 10, 1.649072354865927**trillions. For the cryptographers, is this a decent random number? Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence
From: Mark Lawrence on 2 Aug 2010 19:37 On 03/08/2010 00:14, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:54:52 -0700, sturlamolden wrote: > >> On 3 Aug, 00:27, Paul Rubin<no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be >>> a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was >>> really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days >>> apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and >>> inheritance for that purpose. >> >> It avoids virtual function calls at the expense of unreable code and >> errors that are nearly impossible to trace. It seems many thinks this is >> a good idea because Microsoft did this with ATL and WTL. There are also >> those who thinks template metaprogramming is a good idea. But who uses a >> C++ compiler to dumb to unroll a for loop? In my experience, trying to >> outsmart a modern compiler is almost always a bad idea. >> >>> I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of >>> its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy. >> >> It is annyingly verbose, reminds me of Pascal (I hate the looks of it), >> and is rumoured to produce slow bloatware. > >> And don't forget Ariane 5 ;) >> > This had nothing to do with Ada per se and everything to do with > shortcuts: > > - re-use of an Ariane 4 component without changing its parameters > to match the Ariane 5 flight profile > - not removing Ariane 4-only code intended to handle launch holds > and not used at all in Ariane 5 > - a programming fault that allowed an exception code to be sent > to another component as if it was valid data. > > Inadequate testing allowed all these to be flown without finding the > errors. > > Bottom line: All this would still have happened regardless of the > programming language used. However, don't just listen to me: read the > final report on Ariane 501 here: > > http://www.di.unito.it/~damiani/ariane5rep.html > > A bug is a bug is a bug? Except in my code. Never written a bug in my life. Cross my heart and hope to die. Of course I'm lying. :) Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence.
From: sturlamolden on 2 Aug 2010 19:49 On 3 Aug, 01:37, Mark Lawrence <breamore...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > A bug is a bug is a bug? According to Grace Hopper, a bug might be a moth, in which case the best debugger is a pair of forceps.
From: Christian Heimes on 2 Aug 2010 19:55
Am 03.08.2010 01:03, schrieb Aahz: > http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/May/stroustrup.html I don't understand why the URL contains the word "joke". Every word is true. Hell yeah! :) Christian |