delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Virus-Scanned: | amavisd-new at neurotica.com |
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore: | I do not consent to surveillance, prick |
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com; |
s=default; t=1436300554; | |
bh=ejja2Uz76O2ljUdxmpojkjNqvMoFRi4jm4L9QuA/y0c=; | |
h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; | |
b=TD20St2TY3AFc5RhQPSjNFyQXl+jIUk+wRV2VDesYJs+U2/g5dYMOJj8nOZ/Up2Eo | |
F7LRsMnqr/uHhPO4jc0IA9X9IkLzwth4lqjSGlJTEDilT/mdoIlkHRNXGrBi2wJIW9 | |
bQQgCYEqPKsSribCdKf8myBmDNjpatV14BAGZwyM= | |
Message-ID: | <559C350A.3040808@neurotica.com> |
Date: | Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:22:34 -0400 |
From: | "Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? |
References: | <1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436293439 DOT 678 DOT 71 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C24B4 DOT 3040007 AT neurotica DOT com> <20150707193304 DOT GA14821 AT recycle DOT lbl DOT gov> |
In-Reply-To: | <20150707193304.GA14821@recycle.lbl.gov> |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
On 07/07/2015 03:33 PM, Larry Doolittle wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:12:52PM -0400, Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> All of that is purely subjective. FOR ME, yes, C is nearly the >> ultimate in fun. My C code has far fewer bugs than my code in nearly >> any other language, my code size (the binary...which is all that really >> matters!) is a fraction of anything else, and "better"...well that just >> spells "subjective" right there. > > There's a lot to like about Python etc. But C is an established > ISO standard. I have C code that I wrote 20 years ago that runs > flawlessly. Can't say that about Python. The best you can do is > claim that since Python is open-source and written in C, you can > freeze an arbitrary Python version and run it forever. But that > is somewhat impractical, given the goals of grabbing python modules > from wherever, and given the size of its code base. Absolutely. > I'd like to see at least one of Python, Lua, Nim, Julia, ... reach > the level of maturity and stability that we have in C today. But > that clearly won't happen quickly. And it's hard to crystal-ball > gaze and figure out which one deserves our brain cells today. Too true. It's always a gamble. I believe the world truly needs a language that's established and standardized to the level of C, but that isn't the abortion that is C++ or the lumbering pig that is virtualized Java, that compiles all the way to a native executable binary. > For all the javascript bashing I heard here, I'd like to point out > that it, too, shows up as an ISO/IEC standard. True. Now if one could only compile it to a native binary. It's not that bad of a language, overall. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |