Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 2/12/25 11:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2025 22:54, John Ames wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:09:18 -0500
"WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>

As for including size info in arrays ... makes good sense to me. EZ
to know what you're dealing with. Liked the old short-strings in
Turbo - the first byte was the string length.

>
There's definitely an argument to be made for including bounds info as
part of the array structure. There's no argument (that I've ever heard)
to be made for making it part of the *type specification.* Any line of
reasoning that says a carton of six eggs and a carton of twelve eggs
are somehow different *kinds* of objects and their contents incomparable
is fundamentally deranged.
>

The problem with languages designed to let stupid people program safely is that as in the case with all highest common factor legislation, the majority suffers to protect the few idiots from themselves.

   But IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY ???
   There have always been some idiots in programming/development.
   That percentage, for a number of reasons, seems to have steeply
   increased.
   Almost ALL of western economies absolutely DEPEND on the
   net/cloud/systems in order to function - commerce, banking,
   the infrastructure, transport, energy, supply/demand, mil
   and security - ALL of it.
   As it appears very difficult to weed out the idiots, and
   years to create a new class of Competent, the second tier
   approach is to COPE with them. Alas this means much more
   'idiot-proof' computer languages/systems no matter the
   cost/hassle to the competent fraction.
   Nobody wants to hear this, but Real is Real.
   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.