By: ? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com),
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon@anon.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>anon (anon@anon.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>iirekm (iirekm@gmail.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 6/5/10 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>
>>>>>And I really do dislike C++. It's a really bad language, in
>>>>>my opinion. It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
>>>>>does not tackle the right ones. The things C++ "solves"
>>>>>are trivial things, almost purely syntactic extensions to
>>>>>C rather than fixing some true deep problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>(The C++ objects, templates and function overloading are
>>>>>all just syntactic sugar. And generally bad syntax
>>>>>at that. And C++ actually makes the C type system actively
>>>>>worse.)
>>>>
>>>>Well, the more high-level a programming language is, the more syntactic sugar it
>>>>has. How C language improves Assembler:
>>>>- syntactic sugars (for example just c = a + b instead of:
>>>>mov eax, a
>>>>add eax, b
>>>>mov c, eax)
>>>
>>>Utter rubbish. C presents a (relatively) well defined and portable programming model.
>>
>>What do you mean? The assembly code is *highly* portable, I would say it is more portable than C.
>
>But you would say that because, based on past conversations I've had with you here, I think you're an idiot.
If I am an idiot, then also anybody who directly or indirectly worked for Transmeta is an idiot as well. Linus worked for Transmeta. Linus, you are an idiot. QED
Or maybe Transmeta chose assembly code at the base level, not C code, because the assembly code seemed to be more portable than C ...
Oh god, VMWare also chose assembly code, not C code. Maybe because it seemed more portable than C code? Or maybe they chose it because they are idiots, who knows.
---------------------------
>? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>anon (anon@anon.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>iirekm (iirekm@gmail.com) on 6/11/10 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 6/5/10 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>
>>>>>And I really do dislike C++. It's a really bad language, in
>>>>>my opinion. It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
>>>>>does not tackle the right ones. The things C++ "solves"
>>>>>are trivial things, almost purely syntactic extensions to
>>>>>C rather than fixing some true deep problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>(The C++ objects, templates and function overloading are
>>>>>all just syntactic sugar. And generally bad syntax
>>>>>at that. And C++ actually makes the C type system actively
>>>>>worse.)
>>>>
>>>>Well, the more high-level a programming language is, the more syntactic sugar it
>>>>has. How C language improves Assembler:
>>>>- syntactic sugars (for example just c = a + b instead of:
>>>>mov eax, a
>>>>add eax, b
>>>>mov c, eax)
>>>
>>>Utter rubbish. C presents a (relatively) well defined and portable programming model.
>>
>>What do you mean? The assembly code is *highly* portable, I would say it is more portable than C.
>
>But you would say that because, based on past conversations I've had with you here, I think you're an idiot.
If I am an idiot, then also anybody who directly or indirectly worked for Transmeta is an idiot as well. Linus worked for Transmeta. Linus, you are an idiot. QED
Or maybe Transmeta chose assembly code at the base level, not C code, because the assembly code seemed to be more portable than C ...
Oh god, VMWare also chose assembly code, not C code. Maybe because it seemed more portable than C code? Or maybe they chose it because they are idiots, who knows.