Re: else ladders practice

On 22/11/2024 12:05, Bart wrote:

On 21/11/2024 13:00, David Brown wrote:

On 20/11/2024 21:17, Bart wrote:

 

Your development process sounds bad in so many ways it is hard to know where to start.  I think perhaps the foundation is that you taught yourself a bit of programming in the 1970's,

 I did a CS degree actually. I also spent a year programming, working for the ARC and SRC (UK research councils).
 But since you are being so condescending, I think /your/ problem is in having to use C. I briefly mentioned that a 'better language' can help.
 

I use better languages than C, when there are better languages than C for the task.  And as you regularly point out, I don't program in "normal" C, but in a subset of C limited by (amongst many other things) a choice of gcc warnings, combined with compiler extensions.
My programming and thinking is not limited to C.  But I believe I have a better general understanding of that language than you do (though there are some aspects you no doubt know better than me).  I can say that because I have read the standards, and make a point of keeping up with them.  I think about the features of C - I don't simply reject half of them because of some weird prejudice (and then complain that the language doesn't have the features you want!).  I learn what the language actually says and how it is defined - I don't alternate between pretending it is all terrible, and pretending it works the way I'd like it to work.

While I don't claim that my language is particularly safe, mine is somewhat safer than C in its type system, and far less error prone in its syntax and its overall design (for example, a function's details are always defined in exactly one place, so less maintenance and fewer things to get wrong).
 So, half the options in your C compilers are to help get around those shortcomings.

What is your point?  Are you trying to say that your language is better than C because your language doesn't let you make certain mistakes that a few people sometimes make in C?  So what?  Your language doesn't let people make mistakes because no one else uses it.  If they did, I am confident that it would provide plenty of scope for getting things wrong.
People can write good quality C with few mistakes.  They have the tools available to help them.  If they don't make use of the tools, it's their fault - not the fault of the language.  If they write bad code - as bad programmers do in any language, with any tools - it's their fault.

 You also seem proud that in this example:
    int F(int n) {
       if (n==1) return 10;
       if (n==2) return 20;
   }
 You can use 'unreachable()', a new C feature, to silence compiler messages about running into the end of the function, something I considered a complete hack.

I don't care what you consider a hack.  I appreciate being able to write code that is safe, correct, clear, maintainable and efficient.  I don't really understand why that bothers you.  Do you find it difficult to write such code in C?

 My language requires a valid return value from the last statement. In that it's similar to the Rust example I posted 9 hours ago.

If you are not able to use a feature such as "unreachable()" safely and correctly, then I suppose it makes sense not to have such a feature in your language.
Personally, I have use of powerful tools.  And I like that those powerful tools also come with checks and safety features.
Of course there is a place for different balances between power and safety here - there is a reason there are many programming languages, and why many programmers use different languages for different tasks.  I would not expect many C programmers to have much use for "unreachable()".

 Yet the gaslighting here suggested what I chose to do was completely wrong.
 

And presumably you also advise doing so on a bargain basement single-core computer from at least 15 years ago?

 Another example of you acknowledging that compilation speed can be a problem. So a brute force approach to speed is what counts for you.
 

No, trying to use a long-outdated and underpowered computer and then complaining about the speed is a problem.
But if I felt that compiler speed was a serious hinder to my work, and alternatives did not do as good a job, I'd get a faster computer (within reason).  That's the way things work for professionals.  (If I felt that expensive commercial compilers did a better job than gcc for my work, then I'd buy them - I've tested them and concluded that gcc is the best tool for my needs, regardless of price.)

If you found that it took several hours to drive 20 miles from A to B, your answer would be to buy a car that goes at 300mph, rather than doing endless detours along the way.

Presumably, in your analogy, the detours are useful.

 Or another option is to think about each journey extremely carefully, and then only do the trip once a week!
 

That sounds a vastly better option, yes.
Certainly it is better than swapping out the car with an electric scooter that can't do these important "detours".