Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:41:23 -0500
"WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

As for including type info - limits and more - the effective overhead
in these days of gigabit flow and GHz multicore chips is negligible.
As such I'd say to include it one way or another.

Again, if you want to argue for the safety of enforced bounds-checking
being worth the trade-off in performance, I'm willing to entertain that
argument, even if I only situationally agree. Lots of languages have
chosen to make that trade, and more power to 'em.

But what remains absolutely - and, AFAIK, uniquely - *demented* is for
a language to specify that *two arrays of different sizes are different
types of entity,* even if their elements are identically-typed.

There is *no* reason that I can see to do this. A language that forgoes
bounds-checking entirely gains some performance, at the cost of safety;
a language that includes bounds info as part of the array's structure
gains safety and convenience at the cost of some performance. Pascal,
on the other hand, gets no performance advantage, while burdening the
programmer with all the bookkeeping that is *necessary* for safety in
languages like C, even though it keeps all the information needed to
provide a less burdensome, more convenient alternative. Truly deranged.