Re: OT: Programming Languages

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:f1kcij51cie8n6c2qdq9fdj7dbm2alsuev@4ax.com...

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 12:00:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:p5ecij1jf5a4in5mnmelkdfrovelr0esko@4ax.com...

On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 07:44:28 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:50:41 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Nick Hayward
<nhayward8990@protonmail.com> wrote in <vg3m01$3e15j$2@dont-email.me>:
>

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:57:21 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>

On 11/1/24 19:04, Cursitor Doom wrote:

You can call me old fashioned, but I still believe there's never been a
more elegant computer language than the original K&R C. You can keep
the rest; I'll stick with that.

>
Agreed! All the hand-holding of later versions just get in the way.
>
Jeroen Belleman

>
What about C++?

>
It is a crime against humanity!!!

>
Most computing languages originate from programmers wanting to play
with programming because solving real-world problems - the things we
pay them to do - isn't interesting.
>
In academia, they need toys and things to argue about so they keep
inventing languages. It's like economists who can't say "let the
market work, and econ 101 is all anybody needs."
>
I sat in on one cs class where new languages weren't enough fun, so
the prof lectured about compiler compilers, a whole new layer of
abstraction.
>

>
Ah lex and yacc.
Well if you're going to use any kind of compiler/interpreter, someone has to write it.
>
Does LTSpice originate from designers wanting to play with simulation because putting real parts together isn't interesting?

>
It's slow and expensive to make ICs, so it makes sense to simulate
first. The ICE in SPICE means "integrated circuit emphasis."

There can't be anyone here who doesn't already know that or who hasn't seen that video.

>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU
>
That's brilliant, cultivating your intuition. But I disagree about
using Spice to design real products: it works.
>

>
Managers tend to like simulation because you don't have to get your hands dirty.
At least not until the design which worked fine in simulation either doesn't work at all or has some unexpected issue in reality.
>
>

>
I can run a sim that steps through hundreds or thousands of cases, and
run it over a weekend. A silimar set of  breadboard tests might take
months of hands-on bench work.

I'm not suggesting you should breadboard everything, that's simply not possible.

>
And I was never good at nonlinear control theory. Nobody is.
>
I do breadboard to test parts whose models can't be trusted or when
models are unavailable, but we seldom breadboard complex circuits and
never breadboard actual products.
>
I know of one giant organization that defines six iterations of a
design, and uses at least that many. It takes them years to finish
anything.