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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #91489

Re: High level C

From Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: High level C
Date 2016-08-01 10:21 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nnnp4i$a3a$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <89cbb9bc-51c5-45f0-b0ba-c0d469a0b668@googlegroups.com> <kfnvazlnb8l.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <579e0bce.8242578@news.xs4all.nl> <kfn60rlmpzv.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <928f054b-32b7-40bf-a5c7-bbd9c7b35987@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 10:55:58 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>>
>>> It's also a silly number
>>
>> If it is an accurate reporting of an actual measurement of
>> productivity, how is it silly?  Do you think that the kind of
>> activities involved are not typical of most code development?
>> Wouldn't that depend on what programming tasks were measured?
>> Or do you think the number is silly for some other reason?
>>
> Plenty of C coding is done in an environment where there is no dynamic
> memory at all. So no measure of the impact of GC can be truly
> representative of a cross-section of C programming.
> Really the question is, what type of coding, what type of productivity gain,
> and is it in an area that is a risk to the business.
>
> For example, you might have one person you can't easily replace doing
> core mathematical algorithms, and ten people putting up windows and
> writing SQL queries and doing all the other jobs needed to gather the
> data to feed to those algorithms and present the results to the user.
> Now it's unlikely your pay your mathematician ten times as much as your
> other programmers, probably more like 50% more and less than than lead
> programmer on the project. So on one level, if we double everyone else's
> productivity, and halve the mathematician's we've essentially halved the
> cost of development. However we've also doubled the development time,
> and we've doubled the risk that our mathematician will go under a bus before
> the project is completed.
> So the move to GC wouldn't really be a good idea, under those hypothetical
> circumstances. The scenario is a bit extreme, to make the point, but not
> fundamentally unrealistic. Not all lines of code are worth the same.


The more important point is that it's very nearly impossible to predict 
the outcome of a move to GC.

Let me try an alternate derivation. I don't think you gain that much
from having GC available to anyone on the team. Any given SQL query has
a finite lifetime. In order to completely test a reasonable subset of
SQL queries, you have to be able to reason effectively about the
lifetime of SQL queries.

If there's a hole in the use cases used for development, then you'll
have some sort of problem proportional to that hole no matter what.

The *larger*  problem is that people are doing automation work where
the outcome of said work has no predictable payback vs. predictable
cost. If the automation itself is self-evident then all these problems
fall away.

>>
>> But suppose we back up and guess that these reports are not
>> typical, and that a more representative number is 1.25 times.
>> Doesn't that already seem like a signifcant factor?  Being
>> able to accomplish a task that would have taken five weeks
>> in only four weeks?  I still would put that in the big win
>> category.
>>
> I don't think there's any dispute that proper handling of memory allocation failure
> and freeing of allocated structures adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to
> C code.

Oh, I think there is lots of room for saying that.

> Made worse because many people won't use a goto on malloc()
> failure, so the complexity goes into their main control flow. Also because
> some people insist that root objects be allocated on the stack, which saves
> one malloc() call, at cost of complicating the create / destroy paradigm.
>

Creating furniture which "does allocation" with reasonable paths on 
failure is rather boring but necessary in 'C'. And second, why are you 
creating and destroying all the time?

If you are creating and destroying all the time, why don't you have 
instrumentation and other support scaffolding to to show that this 
operates  properly?

> It also means that some methodolgies, like closures which survive the return
> from the captured scope, can't easily be implemented in C.

I'd rather strenuously disagree in that exact case - indeed, that's the 
main technology I find somewhat "easier" in 'C' than in languages where 
scope and lifespan are differently entangled.

> You can easily
> enough malloc a chunk of memory to take a snapshot of the scope, but you can't
> then destroy it when the closure is finally got rid of.
>

There are more strategies for solving that problem than I can recount.

-- 
Les Cargill

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

Thread

High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-15 23:36 +0200
  Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 15:17 -0700
    Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:09 +0200
      Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-17 20:02 -0700
  Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 15:17 -0700
    Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 23:55 -0700
  Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:27 +0100
    Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:13 +0200
      Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 02:07 -0700
        Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 11:07 +0100
          Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 03:29 -0700
            Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:40 +0100
            Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 11:57 +0530
          Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 11:30 +0100
            Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 03:43 -0700
              Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:53 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 07:49 -0700
                Re: High level C Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-16 17:08 +0200
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 09:09 -0700
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 16:26 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 18:05 +0200
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 20:15 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 23:44 +0200
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:39 +0000
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:58 +0200
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 14:52 +0000
                Re: High level C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 16:29 +0100
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:38 +0000
              Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 14:17 +0100
            Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:46 +0100
            Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:05 +0530
              Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 11:03 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-17 03:39 -0700
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 18:20 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 14:00 +0100
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 23:13 +0530
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-17 20:14 +0200
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-17 20:14 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 20:45 +0100
                Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 21:00 +0100
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:48 +0530
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 00:55 -0700
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:25 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 11:40 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 05:05 -0700
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:59 +0530
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:50 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 19:07 +0100
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 11:53 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 11:15 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 14:00 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:01 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:26 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:57 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 17:13 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 18:14 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:20 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:46 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-20 02:44 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-20 10:59 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 03:07 -0700
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-21 01:44 +0100
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 18:58 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 17:20 +0100
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-21 20:52 +0100
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 21:14 +0100
                Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-21 13:23 -0700
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 21:50 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 12:52 +0200
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 04:03 -0700
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:56 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:09 +0100
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:49 +0530
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:37 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-19 19:16 +0200
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:17 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-19 21:07 +0200
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-20 02:36 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 07:27 -0700
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:27 +0100
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 08:43 -0700
                Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:14 +0100
                Re: High level C Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-18 10:08 +0200
                Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 23:04 +0530
      Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 10:18 +0100
    Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:26 +0000
      Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:21 -0700
        Re: High level C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:19 -0700
          Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 10:31 -0700
            Re: High level C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 21:13 -0700
              Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 09:05 -0700
                Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-29 09:30 -0700
                Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 10:08 -0700
                Re: High level C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-29 17:57 +0000
                Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 11:50 -0700
              Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 07:16 -0700
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:34 +0000
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 14:55 -0700
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-01 03:10 -0700
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 07:40 -0700
                Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:43 +0100
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 10:21 -0500
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-03 13:14 +0000
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 08:40 -0700
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-05 09:28 -0700
                Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 09:55 -0700
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:51 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 18:43 +0200
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:43 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 00:52 +0200
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:42 +0000
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-11 12:24 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-31 16:42 +0200
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:59 -0700
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0500
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0700
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 00:54 -0500
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 08:08 -0700
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 12:58 -0500
                Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-01 12:25 -0700
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-03 08:44 -0700
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 11:56 -0500
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 19:29 +0200
                Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-03 13:45 -0400
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 13:23 -0500
                Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-03 19:27 +0100
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 21:04 +0200
                Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:08 +0100
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 16:09 -0500
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 16:06 -0500
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 23:36 +0200
                Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 19:44 -0500
                Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-03 15:03 -0700
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-04 19:17 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 05:48 +0200
                Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 08:24 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 18:30 +0200
                Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 10:34 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 20:50 +0200
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:39 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 00:50 +0200
                Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 17:08 -0700
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 02:23 +0200
                Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-06 10:03 +0000
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 12:13 +0200
                Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-06 11:10 -0400
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 17:40 +0200
                Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-06 11:56 -0400
                Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 17:51 +0200
                Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 09:12 -0700
                Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-31 22:07 +0200
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 15:05 -0700
                Re: High level C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-03 11:22 +1200
                Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-03 08:50 -0700
  Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:12 +0100
    Re: High level C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 20:16 -0400
    Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:17 +0200
  Re: High level C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 08:20 -0700
    Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 17:24 +0200
      Re: High level C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 09:24 -0700
  Re: High level C carlglassberg@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:15 -0700
  Re: High level C carlglassberg@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:22 -0700
    Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-17 23:58 +0200
  Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 13:20 -0700

csiph-web