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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #54708

Re: Really?

Show key headers only | View raw

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>different development style than Forth or C, where you have to be
>>careful to not give back hard-earned gains.
> If you run into that problem, there probably is something wrong with
> your basic architecture or your code, and the "gains" are actually a
> burden.

What I've seen with large C programs is that bugs are elusive--they lurk
around for a long time before even being noticed, they they're hunted
for a while before any pattern emerges, and then they're often quite
hard to diagnose and fix.  So old C programs are valuable because
they're "seasoned": much effort has been spent finding and chasing bugs
over the years, that has to be re-done if you toss out the code.

By comparison, the mantra with fancy typed languages like Ocaml is that
once you fix all the compile-time type errors the code tends to work.
With latently typed languages like Python, you avoid every sort of
compile-time error, and in return you get a lot of early runtime errors
that give exact stack traces and are easy to debug.  You don't invest
nearly the debugging time as you do in C so the program doesn't gain as
much value as it ages.

I had a significant change in perspective when I got involved in a
Python project dealing with a large (terabytes) data corpus.  The motto
there was basically that data is gold but code is crap.  I'd been used
to hearing it the other way around.  We were constantly writing
throwaway programs to munch the data one way or another, but replacing
the data (collected over decades) would have been impossible.

> Better don't throw good programming effort after bad (that may have
> been the problem with Valdocs).

I don't know what happened with Valdocs.  I wasn't able to find the
reference HAA mentioned.

> Concerning run-time checks, if you think that helps, put them into your
> code.

The trouble is that errors happen in exactly the places you don't expect
them to, or else they wouldn't be errors ;).  Yes some asserts here and
there are good, but pervasive checking catches a lot of stuff that could
go unnoticed.  Think of all the subscript errors in Fortran and C
programs over the years.  

> If you are used to garbage collection, you may find that hard, and
> requiring you to think outside the box of your usual practices.
> Programming like in a GC language and trying to put in FREEs where
> necessary will not lead to good results.

For lots of purposes, single-ownership pointers (std::unique_ptr) in C++
can take the place of GC with almost no overhead and not too much
programmer effort.  But they rely on the C++'s so-called RAII paradigm,
where a value's type signature can tell the compiler to call
user-supplied code when the value goes out of scope, and also operator
overloading to track the movement of values from one place to another.
It's much easier than manual alloc/free and I don't think it can be done
in Forth.  But, the Boehm GC works pretty well in C and sounds ok for
Forth (you'd know better than me about that).

I think embedded and instrumentation-like programs that are Forth's
specialty avoid the whole problem by not having dynamic memory
allocation at all.  Just some static variables and buffers, maybe a few
ALLOTs at initialization time, plus the stacks.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 06:46 -0800
  Re: Really? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 07:20 -0800
  Re: Really? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:58 -0800
  Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:06 -0500
  Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:25 -0800
  Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-07 11:45 +1100
  Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-06 15:38 -1000
    Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 09:50 -0800
  Re: Really? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-06 23:39 -0500
    Re: Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:04 -0800
    Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-08 11:04 +1100
      Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:42 -0800
        Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-08 20:12 +1100
          Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 02:44 -0800
          Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-08 17:48 +0000
            Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-08 18:43 +0000
              Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 15:24 -0800
            Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 16:26 -0800
    Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 22:45 -0800
      Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:50 -0800
    Re: Really? clozaga@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
      Re: Really? clozaga@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:04 -0800
      Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 20:01 -0800
        Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-12 16:26 +0000
          Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 16:52 -0800
            Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 09:49 +0000
              Re: Really? minforth@arcor.de - 2017-02-13 07:03 -0800
              Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 13:41 -0800
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 22:32 +0000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-15 11:42 -0800
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-15 20:41 +0000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 09:42 -0800
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-17 22:22 +0000
          Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-12 19:24 -1000
            Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 08:49 +0000
  Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 11:01 +0000
    Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 03:06 -0800
      Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 09:35 -0800
      Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-07 17:35 +0000
        Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:24 -0800
          Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-09 08:57 +0000
            Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-09 13:24 +0100
              Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-11 15:32 +0000
      Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 20:42 +0000
        Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-07 13:58 -1000
          Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 21:51 -0800
            Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 01:47 -0500
              Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:52 -0800
                Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 03:34 -0500
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-08 13:43 +0000
                Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-08 15:39 -1000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 22:39 -0800
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 08:56 +0000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:36 -0800
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 08:33 +0000
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 09:03 +0000
                Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-09 10:51 +0100
                Re: Really? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-02-09 11:54 +0000
                Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-09 09:30 -1000
                Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-09 14:14 +0000
                Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 14:37 +0000
                Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-09 15:24 +0000
                Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-09 12:01 -0800
                Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-10 01:09 +0000
                Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-09 18:19 -0800
                Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-09 16:30 -1000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 19:16 -0800
                Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-10 16:29 +0000
                OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 17:30 +0000
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 11:46 -0600
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-10 11:54 -0600
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 18:05 +0000
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 17:55 +0000
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 12:04 -0600
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 18:07 +0000
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0600
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 19:26 +0000
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 14:04 -0600
                Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-11 09:35 +0000
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 16:33 -0800
                Static type checking (was: Really?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-10 11:07 +0000
                Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-11 15:16 +0000
                Re: Really? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0600
                Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 19:02 -0800
                Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-10 17:31 +0100
                Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-08 15:34 -1000
              Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-07 21:15 -1000
              Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:46 -0800
        Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:47 -0800
          Re: Really? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:52 +0200
    Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:29 -0500
      Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 20:47 +0000
        Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:23 -0500
          Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-08 09:47 +0000
            Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:13 -0500
              Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-08 11:23 +0000
    Re: Really? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-07 09:49 -0600
  Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
    Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-10 10:32 +1100
      Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 17:22 -0800

csiph-web