Sujet : Re: Baby X is bor nagain
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 27. Jun 2024, 13:16:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 26/06/2024 13:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote:
...
I /do/ use Python. I use it when it is an appropriate language to use,
which is very different circumstances from when I use C (or
C++). Different tools for different tasks.
>
And yet neither of you are interested in answering my question, which was
why its simplistic bytecode compiler is acceptable in this scenario, but
would be considered useless if applied to C code.
You throw out a lot of these sorts of question, by which I mean
questions that you either /do/ know the answers to or which you /should/
know the answers to.
If a software engineering student asked me this sort of "challenge"
question it would immediately become homework: come up with at least two
scenarios in which a simplistic C bytecode compiler would be an
unacceptable tool to use, and two in which Python with a trivial
bytecode compiler would be an acceptable tool to use. In each case
explain why. Anyone who could not would get marked down on the course.
I'm not sure what you're implying here.
Some here are consistently saying that any compiler whose internal processes are not at the scale or depth that you find in 'professional', 'industrial scale' products like gcc, clang, icc, is not worth bothering with and is basically a useless toy.
And yet those same people are happy that such a straightforward compiler, which does less error-checking than Tiny C, is used within the dynamic scripting languages they employ.
It just seemed to me to be blind prejudice.
They were also unwilling to answer questions about whether, given a simpler task of translating initialisation data such as long sequences of integer constants, or strings, they'd be willing to entrust it to such a 'toy' compiler or even a dedicated tool. Since here there is no analysis to be done nor any optimisation.
Assuming the answer is No, it must be the bigger, much slower product, then it sounds like irrational hatred.
So, what would your students say?