By: EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com), July 13, 2015 4:48 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on July 13, 2015 3:24 pm wrote:
> Strict and easy is very good for high level languages.
At such high levels languages if everything below is so f***ed up the language will only have to options: give that complexity to the programmer, which is against the "simple" or put barriers everywhere which will slow down things to unacceptable levels.
Guess what, everybody opted for the first, so Linus is arguing in favor of a sane world where things happen in the order the programmer asked for, hardware makers f***ed up and shuffled the order completely compiler makers said: "since everything is already a mess we will not try to fix anything, instead we will f*** up a little more and give the problem to the programmer", so what you thing for high level languages is not going to happen, neither is for Linus, you kind of agree with him but you think this should be accomplished by impossible means.
> Strict and easy is very good for high level languages.
At such high levels languages if everything below is so f***ed up the language will only have to options: give that complexity to the programmer, which is against the "simple" or put barriers everywhere which will slow down things to unacceptable levels.
Guess what, everybody opted for the first, so Linus is arguing in favor of a sane world where things happen in the order the programmer asked for, hardware makers f***ed up and shuffled the order completely compiler makers said: "since everything is already a mess we will not try to fix anything, instead we will f*** up a little more and give the problem to the programmer", so what you thing for high level languages is not going to happen, neither is for Linus, you kind of agree with him but you think this should be accomplished by impossible means.