Re using BREAK in 'C'
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 | Next > |
 |
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Vitaliy-14
::
Rate this Message:
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >>> If you don't grok the relevance: qwerty layout was deliberately chosen >>> to slow down typing speed. >> >> AFAIK, it is an urban legend. > > Reference? Shouldn't be the burden of proof be on you, to provide references to support your claim? :) Googling "qwerty urban legend" brings up this, for example: http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html It discusses other "failures" of the market, such as Beta vs VHS and Apple vs Microsoft. > And even if it would be an urban legend: it is far from optimal. Yet we > all use it. How far is "far"? If you could increase your typing speed twofold by simply switching to Dvorak, everyone would be using Dvorak and not QWERTY. The truth is, the gains you get are trivial, and matter more to record-setting typists than to regular Joes. Vitaliy -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
RE: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Michael Rigby-Jones-2
::
Rate this Message:
> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@... > [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Olin Lathrop > Sent: 30 June 2009 16:03 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: Re [PIC]using BREAK in 'C' > > > Today we have a very different world. Even if we accept all > the above and understand C is required for some new projects > only because it is already popular, what is missing is the > outcry of users demanding something better. And why do you think that is? Thousands (probably millions) of people successfully use C everyday without feeling the need to condemn it; don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume they should all agree with your opinions? Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Alan B. Pearce-2
::
Rate this Message:
>> Today we have a very different world. Even if we accept all
>> the above and understand C is required for some new projects >> only because it is already popular, what is missing is the >> outcry of users demanding something better. > >And why do you think that is? Thousands (probably millions) of >people successfully use C everyday without feeling the need to >condemn it; don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume they >should all agree with your opinions? maybe it is because there are a heap of mature tools, like lint, to catch a lot of the possible errors, which keeps the resulting code reliable? -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Wouter van Ooijen
::
Rate this Message:
> Are you seriously trying to defend C on technical merits!!? There may be
> some reasons you have to use C today on a project, but technical superiority > of the language is certainly not one of them. To mention one of those 'some': I am writing some libraries, at the moment using GCC for ARM chips. Can you suggest any other freely available language/compiler that would minimize my efforts if I later decide to target other 32-bit chips too (like PIC32/MIPS, maybe intel)? I do dislike aspects of C/C++ as a language, but among the tools currently available for this type of programming I see no serious alternatives. -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Tamas Rudnai
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@...> wrote:
> I do dislike aspects of C/C++ as a language, but among the tools > currently available for this type of programming I see no serious > alternatives. Here we go. No better alternative! That's what many programmer says that unfortunately C is too widely used to be able to avoid + there was no serious effort to create a language that is better in terms of language structure and in terms of information security + in terms of speed of development. And if all of these would be here already it took 10s of years till it becomes that popular that it can wash down C from the planet and making C as a dislike to everyone. Tamas -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Wouter van Ooijen
::
Rate this Message:
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> I do dislike aspects of C/C++ as a language, but among the tools >> currently available for this type of programming I see no serious >> alternatives. > > Exactly. What we need is to have people complain every time they are forced > to use C for such reasons. It will take a while, but hopefully some day > vendors will perceive enough pressure for something better than C that they > are willing to innovate and provide it. I don't think so. C/C++ is a local optimum: - for students: learning C/C++ - for universities: teaching C/C++ - for companies: using C/C++ - for tool vendors: creating/selling C/C++ tools Each of these contribute to the "lockup". But this should not be a surprise. We live in a world of local optima: The PC keyboard, the Intel architecture, the imperial measurement system, the ASCII character set, etc. -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Wouter van Ooijen
::
Rate this Message:
>> I do dislike aspects of C/C++ as a language, but among the tools
>> currently available for this type of programming I see no serious >> alternatives. > > > Here we go. No better alternative! That's what many programmer says that > unfortunately C is too widely used to be able to avoid + there was no > serious effort to create a language that is better in terms of language > structure and in terms of information security + in terms of speed of > development. And if all of these would be here already it took 10s of years > till it becomes that popular that it can wash down C from the planet and > making C as a dislike to everyone. and your point is? -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Gerhard Fiedler
::
Rate this Message:
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>> The point is: was language design and compiler technology advanced >> enough at the time so that an efficient compiler could be made with >> reasonable effort that could have made it possible to create >> efficient OS code with the Pascal of the time? If so, why hadn't >> anybody written a suitable Pascal compiler in 1969 (when development >> of C started) that could've been used? > > I think the answer is that because by that time an OS was written in > Assembly and for everything else you used Algol pretty much (and > Cobol). But I remember that early 80's I was already programming in > Turbo Pascal 3 on the Z80 Softcard (the Z80 based CP/M expansion card > by Microsoft on an Apple II). For a very long time Turbo Pascal on > CP/M and later on on MS-DOS was very very popular. This is exactly my point -- actually two points :) Turbo Pascal was very popular. At some point, it probably was the most popular development environment on CP/M and MS-DOS. I think the main reason why it didn't "take over" like C was the lack of standardization and the proliferation of dialects. The other point is that this was in the early 80ies -- ten years too late for what C was developed for, and (as Bill pointed out) on machines that were vastly superior to what C was developed for. Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by William Couture
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Olin Lathrop<olin_piclist@...> wrote:
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> I do dislike aspects of C/C++ as a language, but among the tools >> currently available for this type of programming I see no serious >> alternatives. > > Exactly. What we need is to have people complain every time they are forced > to use C for such reasons. It will take a while, but hopefully some day > vendors will perceive enough pressure for something better than C that they > are willing to innovate and provide it. 1) "It is a poor workman who blames his tools" 2) If you don't like it, feel free to make something better. If you actually succeed, the world will beat a path to your door. Seriously. I use C every day. I never run into stupid problems from trying to write something like Duff's device because I would never try to bend/break the language like that (and the compiler I use most gives me compile errors on that code). If you need rubber padding on the world to protect you, you might be in the wrong line of work. And, FYI, the original Mac operating system was written in Pascal, and the OS/BIOS hooks were Pascal compatible, not C compatible. They later changed to C. I don't remember the reason, but I'm sure you can find it online somewhere. Bill -- Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Tamas Rudnai
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@...> wrote:
> and your point is? No point, just ranting about C :-) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Gerhard Fiedler
::
Rate this Message:
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> K+R didn't set out to create a new language. They wanted to port an >> OS, needed something better than assembly for that ("better" in this >> context means mostly "more portable"), and had already B available. >> So they developed B into C, apparently making it more suitable for >> their task at hand -- not for you or me or anybody else. I don't >> think it became widely used outside the small scope of Unix until >> the 80ies, by which time the major features were already mostly >> settled -- not exactly as design from scratch, but as result of an >> ongoing development where the language was not a goal in itself, and >> the development of the language had to fit into all the normal >> resource constraints. > > Even if you take this as a excuse for why C was so poorly designed, > it still doesn't excuse its widespread use today. C got popular > because it tagged along with Unix and for other marketing reasons > like that compilers were available cheaply or freely. Somebody spent the money to write those compilers. There is often a reason why people spend money. I still think that Pascal has some characteristics that didn't make it (and still don't make it) well-suited for replacing C. Lack of standardization of a version that is suitable was one, and probably the major, hurdle. > Today we have a very different world. Even if we accept all the above > and understand C is required for some new projects only because it is > already popular, what is missing is the outcry of users demanding > something better. There is no single Pascal definition that somebody could invest a lot of money in. There are a ton of Pascal dialects, all adding their proprietary extensions to make the original Pascal workable in the real programming world, but no single standard. As long as there isn't one, there won't be money in it. Besides, it's funny you should say that. Remember our discussion about use of SI units? This is quite similar. People have lots of code (and money) in C, and once you're there, it's not so easy to switch, especially if there isn't a viable alternative. The one difference between the two situations is that the SI units are the only standard that will survive and some people are resisting (and spending money on resisting), whereas there is no usable Pascal standard, and not even the Pascal proponents seem to be willing to create a usable standard. > C is a horrible development language that encourages bad programming > and bugs. Not really... not anymore than assembly. It makes them possible, more than other languages, but not more (and arguably less) than assembly. There are tools available that discourage most bad programming constructs. One just has to get the head out of the sand and see that a compiler is not everything; the whole environment counts. Just as you improved on the PIC assembler with your environment (because the assembler is lacking for serious work), people have improved on the C environment (because most compilers are lacking for serious work). See lint et al. > I think the real problem > is that too many software developers fall into one of two catagories: > > 1 - I know C, like it well enough because I don't know anything > better, don't want to learn something new, so I view a new > language as a threat because I'd have to take time out to > learn it. It took me weeks to understand those pointer thingies > in C, and I don't want to go thru that again. > > 2 - I like C because I can do whatever I want without the compiler > whining about it. Type checking is for sissies. Look at this > really cool code I wrote that is a whole ray tracer on the back > of a business card. Betcha you can't figure out how it works! It may be that too many developers fall into these categories, but I also think that these aren't so many as to really make a difference. Most C users probably fall into the category "I need a programming language that is supported on most embedded systems, that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg to get the compiler, and that's reasonably standardized so that I'm not married to a single vendor's fate. Also, the company I'm working with has all this code base in C, much of which isn't ideal but nevertheless quite usable." What language would you choose in this situation? > All I'm looking for is some outcry from the minority rest of us to > keep pointing out the faults in C and complain about wanting > something better. It's not easy to change such intrenched thinking, > but if we keep beating on it more and more people may slowly realize > that C is a really bad idea. What would be your suggestion as to what's better? And don't say "Pascal", because we all agree that "the" Pascal is not usable. So you need to specify exactly which Pascal... and here the trouble starts. There is not a usable Pascal... there was Turbo Pascal, there is Delphi, there is Apollo Pascal, there is this and that Pascal -- not a good starting point to argue for adoption of "Pascal". > It's a mindset thing, and I think that's what K+R lacked. In the same vein, it's a mindset thing, and that's what the Pascal world seems to lack. There needs to be one single standard. The C guys got it together rather early; the Pascal guys after so many years don't seem to get anywhere near a usable standard. >> I think I have to repeat it: If someone wants to understand why C is >> how it is, IMO it's tremendously helpful to think of it more as a >> "portable assembly" than a "high-level language". That's how it set >> out, that's the mind frame that determined most of its basic >> structure. And IMO it's perfectly compatible with what it is. > > Right, but that mindset was itself irresponsible. At the least then > promoting this hack (which is after all what you describe) was then > irresponsible. It's not anymore a hack than the assembly code you have in stock. You use assembly because you don't have a better alternative. You'd like to use Pascal, and if you had the money to spend to create Pascal compilers for all platforms you work on, you probably would create an Olin Pascal compiler for each of them, and program in Olin Pascal. And possibly we all would; judging by your assembly environment, I'd probably like your Pascal environment. But you don't have the money, Wirth didn't have it -- and maybe K+R didn't either. This is not hacking, this is engineering: creating what's needed (and not much more) with what's available. And like all engineering, when you're through with it, you know what you'd do differently the second time around. But by that time you're already in a bind with the reality created by the first throw. Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Gerhard Fiedler
::
Rate this Message:
Vitaliy wrote:
> How far is "far"? If you could increase your typing speed twofold by > simply switching to Dvorak, everyone would be using Dvorak and not > QWERTY. The truth is, the gains you get are trivial, and matter more > to record-setting typists than to regular Joes. IMO the Dvorak layout is not mainly about increased typing speed or ease of learning -- it's about less strain on the fingers. The finger movements are shorter, and it's part of a strategy I use to ease the RSI symptoms in my wrists. It does help, and that's not trivial -- and may matter to regular Joes. The fact is that good ergonomics was not a design goal for the original keyboard; it was designed according to other constraints. Those constraints were probably quite suited for mechanical typewriters like they had them back then, but don't apply to other types of keyboards (those ball-type typewriters, computer keyboard etc.) -- yet the design was carried over, even though the reasons for it were long not given anymore. Quite similar to C :) Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Michael Rigby-Jones-2
::
Rate this Message:
> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@... > [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Olin Lathrop > Sent: 01 July 2009 13:03 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: Re [PIC]using BREAK in 'C' > > Michael Rigby-Jones wrote: > > And why do you think that is? > > Because most of them are either the type 1 (too dumb to know > the difference) or type 2 (irresponsible) programmers I > described. Just like 99% of software out there is crap, so > are 90% of the programmers. > "I'm wonderful, everyone else is a bozo/idiot". I'm getting a feeling of dé⋅jà vu... > > Thousands (probably millions) of people successfully use C everyday > > without feeling the need to condemn it; > > That doesn't mean anything, see above. It's been shown many > times that popularity is no indicator of quality or technical > superiority. How many pet rocks were sold back in the 1970s? > Need I say more? > Pet rocks were a stupid, pointless fad, albeit a fairly harmless one. Can you honestly accuse C of being a fad when it's been the most widely used language for at least a couple of decades? > > don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume they should all agree > > with your opinions? > > Are you seriously trying to defend C on technical merits!!? > There may be some reasons you have to use C today on a > project, but technical superiority of the language is > certainly not one of them. You seem to persist in the belief that C is a high level language, it is not IMO. You prefer to write in assembly; do you do this because it's portable, safe, or easy? No, because it's none of these things, but it does offer unparalleled access to the underlying hardware and the greatest scope for fast, compact code. C is simply a step above this, it offers a reasonable level of abstraction without making it difficult/impossible to do the majority of the stuff you do in assembler. I'll be the first to agree that it's not perfect, but it's very obviously good enough. Ranting about it's flaws is pointless unless you can offer a viable alternative, and so far I've not seen one. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
RE: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Michael Rigby-Jones-2
::
Rate this Message:
> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@... > [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Olin Lathrop > Sent: 01 July 2009 16:05 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: Re [PIC]using BREAK in 'C' > I think we all agree that's where we are today. > All my point is that while we may be forced to use C today, > we should complain about it whenever possible. Or alternatievly you could just get on with the job in hand using the tools you have been supplied (and likely ones you are familiar and competent with). > Changing the world won't be easy or quick, but it can't > happen until we start to try. Unless you can somehow convince millions of businesses to spend millions of dollars on new tools, training and conversion of existing code, it simply won't happen. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: Re using BREAK in 'C'
by Tamas Rudnai
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones <
Michael.Rigby-Jones@...> wrote: > > Because most of them are either the type 1 (too dumb to know > > the difference) or type 2 (irresponsible) programmers I > > described. Just like 99% of software out there is crap, so > > are 90% of the programmers. > > > > "I'm wonderful, everyone else is a bozo/idiot". I'm getting a feeling of > dé⋅jà vu... > No, it's just the big number theory. If everyone was "the best" then who is the "best of best"? Only 10% can be really good and as time goes by the "average" becomes "good", and "good" becomes "really good" but in the meantime "really good" becomes "evil good" therefore everything stays in place... Anyway, I see many many badly written code every day and that's why (and because of the bad design of C) we have so many problems with exploits and crashing applications nowadays. In Toulouse it is not just an accident that they use Ada instead for making the Airbus 380. All other languages are something that they wanted to avoid for good reasons. Tamas -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
