X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=BAW8oiaIQQMShr9c46ZmS8gT9vQ1xpJcB6o43oY//YY=;
        b=LmbiyuyIK6P+uk5b/8fuExIUzCiLgfMJGf3iSRa+2UFKSfcPYfcghrutUhDg5fpcAt
         Uqm9zv5LOV5Q5nFTHL1NXS7uOMlebxXgkvqfYm9riIvyrkm4+3qNwSlONiwK1C9Iijok
         uCR15lhKdc9FHdl3Ibq1MA8aIWMqJXobnibg3aw2R03hP0jOk86yul1Qczcb0vzgieCH
         vNlkVRp96YB1ys+c4PNKob8gcl7URelfz52M1hbP4BVfExW7sM8/60DcpYaMfYpQc2np
         vK8tOSIxFb/0HtYui0MSNWxqLc9TWmC4+GkrE0caU2C3qbqWg1G49yMreBlJ6yyVXB9X
         crHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.159.66 with SMTP id i63mr17403112ioe.68.1436361358031;
 Wed, 08 Jul 2015 06:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <559C3667.7030402@neurotica.com>
References: <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<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>
	<20150707183339 DOT GA1817 AT alpha2>
	<559C3667 DOT 7030402 AT neurotica DOT com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:15:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOuGh88fS2pRy4TqYfHHk9wmUORc8Ko7E_AufA42jjHi+tYoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From: "Bob Paddock (graceindustries AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

>   When one raises the conceptual level of programming, one (usually)
> sacrifices flexibility and control, and invariably people explain it
> away with a hand-wave by saying "oh we really didn't want all of that
> flexibility and control anyway, because it made us make mistakes!"
> Everybody makes mistakes, creates buffer overruns and bad pointer
> dereferences etc...but competent developers make fewer mistakes and
> introduce fewer bugs.  Lowering the barriers of entry creates more
> programmers...not better ones.

In the embedded spaces that I've worked in and still do, if I make a
mistake in my code people die (Resume anyone?  Really would like less
stress in my life since my wife's suicide due to spending to much time
at work. :-(  http://www.kpaddock.org then
http://www.kpaddock.com/book ).

Hence I'm always looking for better tools/languages that can help
prevent mistakes.
At the moment I like the looks of Pony because of its mathematical
bases and design for correctness philosophy.
Don't know if is even works in the embedded space yet but will spend
sometime to find out.

That C lets us do damage so easily is not a great reason to support
the language no mater how fast it might run, that it is a standard or
that many people know it.
I'd rather have a program that runs slower and runs correctly *every
time*, that a fast one that crashes even once.

Someone one recently said that "C  is to C++ as Lung is to Lung Cancer"...