Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #53721

Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks"

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/06/2024 12:13 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 20:50, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-03-06, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On 3/6/24 09:18, Michael S wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:50:16 +0000
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Whoever wrote this short Wikipedia article on it got confused too as
>>>>> it uses both Ada and ADA:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
>>>>>
>>>>> (The example program also includes 'Ada' as some package name. Since
>>>>> it is case-insensitive, 'ADA' would also work.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your link is to "simple Wikipedia". I don't know what it is
>>>> exactly, but it does not appear as authoritative as real Wikipedia
>>>
>>> Notice that in your following link, "en" appears at the beginning to
>>> indicate the use of English. "simple" at the beginning of the above link
>>> serves the same purpose. "Simple English" is it's own language, closely
>>> related to standard English.
>>
>> Where is Simple English spoken? Is there some geographic area where
>> native speakers concentrate?
>>
>
> It is meant to be simpler text, written in simpler language.  The target
> audience will include younger people, people with dyslexia or other
> reading difficulties, learners of English, people with lower levels of
> education, people with limited intelligence or learning impediments, or
> simply people whose eyes glaze over when faced with long texts on the
> main Wikipedia pages.
>
>

Yet, why?

There's "Simplified Technical English", which is a same
sort of idea, with the idea that manuals and instructions
be clear and unambiguous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English

Heh, it's like in the old days, when people would get
manuals, and be amused as it were by the expression.


What I'd like to know about is who keeps dialing
the "harmonization" efforts, which really must
give grouse to the "harmonisation" spellers,
when good old-fashioned words "spelt" their own way,
which of course is archaic "spelled".

It reminds me of "Math Blaster" and "Typing Games",
vis-a-vis, "the spelling bee", and for that matter,
of course, weekly spelling quizzes all through
elementary school.

I'm so old the only games we had were how to
compute and how to spell.

And Tooth Invaders.  Just kidding I had 50+ floppies
for my Commodore64.  Like GI Joe and Beachhead II.

But we didn't get promoted in school if we
didn't pass our spelling tests.

(We couldn't even have dangling prepositions
or sentence fragments like the above.)

We had a class in school we couldn't even pass
until we could type thirty words a minute.


The Simplified Technical English though is a good idea,
it's used in technical manuals and instructions, widely.


Really, whever harmonization dials away a word,
I'm like, hey, I'm using that word.


There's something to be said for a, "source parser",
the idea being a, multi-pass parser of sorts, with
any number of, forms, so that it results, parsing
languages sort of opportunistically, and results,
sort of lifting, sections, of source, into regions
of syntax, so that as syntaxes get all commingled,
that all the syntax and grammar definitions get piled
together, where it sort of results then for comments
and quoting, and, usual ideas of brackets, and comma,
for joiners and separators and groupers and splitters,
observing mostly usually the parenthetical and indentation,
for all sorts of languages, into, a pretty common sort of
form.

So, what is there, "Simplified Compilation Source",
basically reflecting, "if it's source somehow it
parses, if being ambiguous among languages then
in editions of each or according to the source
locale", these kinds of things....

For a long time I've been thinking about "modular
and composable parsers", with mostly the usual
goal of relating productions in grammar to source
locations, that one figures it would be a most usual
sort of study, to result, all the proliferation of
little languages, get all parsed, then for the great
facility of "term re-write rules" and "term-graph
re-write rules", or "re-write systems", or for
extracting signatures, identifiers, and logic,
for any kind of language.

I think everybody reading this has a most usual
sort of exposure to the theory of parsing as after
Backus-Naur format, vis-a-vis syntax diagrams or
railroad diagrams, and Chomsky hierarchy, and lexers
and parsers and the interpreted and all these kinds
of things, but I don't know a sort of wide-open
framework that parses any kinds of sources and
happens to also re-write itself to any sort of target,
parsing any source language in any source language.

Did I miss the memo?

What I got into was defining languages in terms
of comments and quoting, and, brackets and commas,
and, space and line, in terms of, sequence and alternation,
for basically that all the source is loaded or mapped into
memory, then instead of an abstract syntax tree or sorts,
results an abstract syntax sequence of sorts, those "lifted"
over the source text for its location, then that any sort
of lexicalizing and syntax and grammar, all get put together
as modules and any one just enumerates or makes equivalent
whatever kind of source it is, then according to the
language, results usual sorts constructs and productions,
for functional and procedural languages, and data,
and, you know, language.

Tesniere, Tesniere is the great complement to Chomsky,
where after Chomsky is like, "this finite state machine
builds models of productions in minimal resources", to,
something like, "Simplified Compilation Source", parser,
"this algorithm works in fixed or linear resources in
up to factorial time and parses anything, and unparsed
sections are their source text, and iterating the data
structure or any segment iterates the source under it
that it's lifted over".


See, look at that, "lifted over", I would get a bad
mark for that.  Of course that's since been relaxed,
figuring it's natural to dangle and OK to continue.
And so on.


So anyways as long as we're talking about all the usual
languages, uh, is that all "Common Source Language"?

CS language?

So, for something like, "Common Compilation Components",
figuring all sorts usual functional and procedural
productions sort of have a usual form and thusly
can be a great fabric of re-write rules, or targetting,
basically is for making common-enough productions and
the algorithm be multi-pass as necessary, to result
a usual sort of workbench for languages of the source.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-08 21:36 -0800
  Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-12 00:07 +0000
    Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 20:05 -0700

csiph-web