That using modern C++ prevents many C issues if it's used correctly. "Just like coders that despite C++ safety improvements over C, use it as C with C++ compiler."ĭavid Thornley brought this up on Schneier's blog when he said he was distrusting about those who mentioned "C/C++" as if they're same thing. Let them use good language with hardware/OS of choosing. Encouraged other languages to do that with many having done it before I got on the scene: Modula, Oberon, Ada, LISP/Scheme, and so on. I tried to solve that with my tools (lang X) using X-to-C compiler w/ seemless FFI for 3rd party code. " because either it isn't available on their platform" And the average programmer working against the clock is supposed to make something robust with such a tool? That's ridiculous. However, an extra problem with C/C++ is that the languages are so complex to analyse that people get friggin' PhD's for certifying or formalizing even a subset of them. We'd need things such as static analysers anyway for spotting problems, optimizing, etc. Ivory language does that with Haskell, for example. Not to mention Racket's metaprogramming combined with C or assembler generation for a high-level use of low-level, fast language. On non-mainstream, Julia is an awesome development that might be re-applied to systems programming. (sighs) Go and Rust give me some hope in that they're first mainstream languages that solve some problems. What's the market do? Push all effort into C and C++. Hell, even industrial BASIC's had less problems that C development with similar safety, readability, and dev speed. I cited Wirth already built half a dozen and Borland industrialized them. They wanted a more productive, safer, easier-to-integrate systems language. People were griping at one point about all C's problems and C++'s similar + new problems. Gabriel might go back and forth but I was sold on the concept first read of paper.
0 kommentar(er)
