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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #150504

Re: Best C compiler

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 15:28:43 UTC, Ben Bacarisse  wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > No, but of all the interfaces that you can offer to the user, a scripting
>> > interface probably offers the most flexibility combined with the worst
>> > ease of use. Once scripts get above a certain very basic level of
>> > complexity, the user, now a programmer, makes errors. That's the experience
>> > of software engineering.
>> 
>> I was not suggesting that other interfaces were /not/ provided.  Are you
>> saying that scripting is like a drug so even providing it as an option
>> will draw inexperienced people into some sort spiral of buggy
>> dependence?  It should simply be an option for those who find it useful.
>>
> If you provide an option, then the users have to learn about and
> explore that option, before they decide whether it is useful to them or
> not.

No they don't.  When I look at the menus for, say, OpenOffice there a
tons of things there I have no idea if they would be useful to me or
not.

> That takes time. Then, in many environments, getting to know a new
> software package is not an unusual thing, it's a constant situation.
> Then many users will be reluctant to reject the option too quickly,
> because if it is provided, that must mean it is useful.

I mean optional to use, not "you must decide once and for all, if you
want to use this".  Users "reject" this sort of option all the time by
simply not using it.  And I can't begin to list the optional parts of
Emacs that are completely unknown to me.

> So you can waste a lot of time by providing functions which are difficult
> to use, even if they are optional.

If you are right (and I don't think you are) what do you suggest?
Should only certain approved people be allowed to use highly functional
software, or should everyone have to use the Notepads of this world in
case too much time is wasted?  Capitalism can't have that -- people
learning stuff they might not need!

> Then does the debugger have an option to save scripts? That's a relatively
> easy option to provide, so by your logic, it should be provided.

Of course.  It should have an option to save all it's state.  Don't they
do that now?  Some didn't I know, that that was decades ago when they
were primitive.  If I've instrumented a program with watch points and
conditional breaks and so on, surely I don't have to re-do that every
time I start a new session?

> But
> then what will happen is that scripts are written and saved by other
> members of the team, and passed about.

Cooperation will happen.

> Suddenly the scripting interface
> is not so optional. And you have to learn, not just a very basic subset
> of the scripting language, but all the facilities that are used by any
> member of the team, anywhere.

Hmm... are you hoping that software design will solve management issues?
I think that's doomed.  If the team can't cope with the scripting, the
team should not use it.

> You very quickly create a monster.

Do you have a set of rules about how limited software should be so as to
make it maximally productive and minimally distracting (AKA
intellectually stimulating)?  Obviously scripting is out (is it out in
all contexts?), but what about other things that might waste people's
time like regular expressions?

>> > However a debugger is in a special situation, in it is already designed
>> > to remove bugs from a scripting language.
>> 
>> I don't follow.
>>
> A debugger is designed to remove bugs.

Ah, I think this may be part of the problem.  I think a debugger is
there to help programmers understand the dynamic behaviour of they
programs.  The debugger itself does not remove any bugs, and it's value
should go beyond finding bugs.

> If it accepts a scripting language,
> some scripts will inevitably contain bugs. So it's adding bugs as well
> as removing them.

In both cases it's the programmer, and both are potential rather than
certain.  Obviously you are using anthropomorphism as a shorthand, but I
think it's a particularly confusing way to say it.  People might be able
to find bugs using a debugger, and people might also introduce bugs into
the process by writing bad scripts.

> You could have a meta debugger that steps through the
> debugging script interactively to help the user find bugs.

You could.  I don't think that would be very useful though.  Any
programmer finding themselves in the position where they don't know what
their scripts are doing should know to back out of that.

> If the software package is not a debugger, then the scripts will also
> potentially contain bugs, but the overall aim is not to remove bugs.

Many of your comments were very general and I've replied to them in the
vein.  Should they all be taken to apply only in the context of a
debugger?

-- 
Ben.

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

Thread

Best C compiler "Usenet Advocate #1337" <test@dont-email.me> - 2020-03-03 22:38 -0500
  Re: Best C compiler Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-04 04:36 +0000
  Re: Best C compiler Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 07:16 +0100
    Re: Best C compiler "Usenet Advocate #1337" <test@dont-email.me> - 2020-03-04 18:48 -0500
      Re: Best C compiler Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 06:14 +0100
  Re: Best C compiler already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2020-03-04 01:05 -0800
  Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-04 11:04 +0000
    Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2020-03-04 07:25 -0400
      Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-04 11:35 +0000
      Re: Best C compiler gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-03-04 13:10 +0000
        Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 06:12 -0800
      Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 10:00 -0800
        Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2020-03-04 22:59 -0400
    Re: Best C compiler gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-03-04 13:07 +0000
  Re: Best C compiler fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 06:26 -0800
    Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 18:08 +0100
      Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 09:26 -0800
        Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 18:31 +0100
          Re: Best C compiler scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-04 22:31 +0000
            Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 06:44 +0100
              Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2020-03-05 03:20 -0400
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 08:22 +0100
              Re: Best C compiler scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-05 16:30 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 17:40 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 08:55 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 18:47 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 10:06 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 20:12 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 11:53 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 01:56 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 14:41 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 05:48 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 06:23 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 07:01 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 16:09 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 09:52 -0800
                Re: Best C compiler Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2020-03-06 19:11 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 09:10 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2020-03-08 16:08 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 18:21 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-03-08 14:57 -0400
                Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 19:32 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Christopher Collins <ccollins476ad@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 12:44 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-10 07:22 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-08 14:34 -0700
                tsan (was Re: Best C compiler) Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-11 21:55 +0000
                Re: tsan (was Re: Best C compiler) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 15:21 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 15:27 +0100
                Re: Best C compiler Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-03-07 12:15 -0500
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-07 17:50 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-03-07 13:00 -0500
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-08 06:16 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-08 13:39 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 13:44 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-11 03:34 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 03:27 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-11 15:28 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 02:51 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-12 11:58 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-03-27 07:01 -0700
                Re: Best C compiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-03-11 16:08 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 09:17 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-05 23:32 +0000
                Re: Best C compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-03-06 12:37 +0100
      Re: Best C compiler fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 14:52 -0800
  Re: Best C compiler jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-04 22:09 +0100
  Re: Best C compiler Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-03-05 08:48 +0100
    Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 12:29 +0100
      Re: Best C compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-03-05 12:41 +0100
  Re: Best C compiler "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 12:11 -0800

csiph-web