Thursday, June 7, 2018

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 5 topics

Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 06 06:24PM -0400

Hello...
 
 
Yet again about my programming philosophy
 
Hope you have understood my previous programming philosophy about
"reliability" , and hope you have read my criticism about C++ and C..
 
Now you have to understand me more..
 
You have noticed that i am coding in modern Object Pascal of Delphi
and FreePascal and Lazarus(with FreePascal), i am an experienced
programmer in modern Object Pascal, but i am also an "inventor", because
i am enhancing Delphi and FreePascal and Lazarus with my "scalable"
algorithms that i have "invented", for example if you take a look at C++
and Boost you will notice that there reference counting and there
shared_ptr and weak_ptr implementations is not "scalable", this is why i
have also invented my Scalable reference counting with efficient
support for weak references for Delphi and FreePascal here, read about
it here and you will notice that it is powerful:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references
 
As you will notice my invention doesn't exist in C++ or C and
doesn't exist in Rust and doesn't exist in ADA etc.
 
So as you are noticing i am "enhancing" Delphi and FreePascal
with my scalable algorithms that i have invented,
you have to look at my other scalable algorithms that i have
invented on my website here:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/
 
 
And you will notice that i am enhancing Delphi and FreePascal
with my scalable algorithms and my other projects like
my Parallel archiver and my Parallel Compression Library,
read about them and you will notice that they are too really powerful,
and look also at my other projects in my website above..
 
 
And i think i will sell some of my other new scalable algorithms
and there implementations that i have invented to software companies
like Embarcadero and Microsoft and Google etc.
 
 
This is my programming philosophy and my way of thinking..
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 06 05:42PM -0400

Hello...
 
You have to understand my programming philosophy..
 
As you have noticed on my previous posts , i was talking "reliability",
i think that C and C++ programmers don't understand the philosophy
of ADA and modern Object Pascal, because ADA and modern Object Pascal
are also brothers, and they give much "importance" to "reliability" than
C or C++ , because from the start they have been designed for more
reliablity than C++ or C, i love ADA because i love modern Object
Pascal, modern Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal is like a "decent"
reliability, but ADA is also more restrictive to be a higher reliability
! i am still studying ADA and Rust to know wich is better.. and i will
come with more information about that.. and why i am coding
in modern Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal ? i am
using Delphi and Freepascal(in the Delphi mode), because
they have become RAD and that's good for more productivity, and
they become more powerful, and since Delphi and FreePascal are
conservative compilers , they have like a decent "performance" and like
a "decent" reliability and a like "decent" portability, this is why
love them, i love also also ADA because it learns me to be "higher"
reliability, this is why i am also following what is happening in ADA
and Rust.
 
Please read the rest of my following previous posts to know better
about my thoughts:
 
C++ is out of talk
 
I will not waste my time with C++, because from the start C++ was
handicaped, because it has inherited the deficiencies of C,
like i have exposed in my previous posts, i think C is "not" a
good programming language because it is "too" weakly typed and it allows
implicit type conversions that are bad for reliability etc. and this
looks like the mess of assembler, because C was "too" low level for
reliability, and since C++ has inherited from C, C++ has inherited this
too low level parts that are not good for reliability, so i will
not waste my time with C++ or with C, and i will continu
to code in "modern" Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal that is more
conservative because it has a "decent" reliability and a "decent"
performance, and those Delphi and FreePascal compilers are "powerful"
today. And i will also work with "Java", because Mono is not following
fast the developement of C# and it is not as portable as Java.
 
And here is what i wrote about C++ and Delphi and FreePascal and ADA:
 
Energy efficiency isn't just a hardware problem. Your programming
language choices can have serious effects on the efficiency of your
energy consumption. We dive deep into what makes a programming language
energy efficient.
 
As the researchers discovered, the CPU-based energy consumption always
represents the majority of the energy consumed.
 
What Pereira et. al. found wasn't entirely surprising: speed does not
always equate energy efficiency. Compiled languages like C, C++, Rust,
and Ada ranked as some of the most energy efficient languages out there.
 
Read more here:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
RAM is still expensive and slow, relative to CPUs
 
And "memory" usage efficiency is important for mobile devices.
 
So Delphi and FreePascal compilers are also still "useful" for mobile
devices, because Delphi and FreePascal are good if you are considering
time and memory or energy and memory, and the following pascal benchmark
was done with FreePascal, and the benchmark shows that C, Go and Pascal
do rather better if you're considering languages based on time and
memory or energy and memory.
 
Read again here to notice it:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
 
Also Delphi is still better for many things, and you have to get more
"technical" to understand it, this is why you have to look at this
following video about Delphi that is more technical:
 
Why are C# Developers choosing Delphi to create Mobile applications
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ToSr4zOVQ
 
 
And I think there is still a "big" problem with C++ and C..
 
Look at C++ explicit conversion functions, they were introduced in
C++11, but this doesn't come by "default" in C++, like in modern Object
Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal and like in ADA , because in C++ you
have to write explicit conversion functions, so this is not good for
reliability in C++, and C++ doesn't by "default" come with range
checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed
to unsigned and arithmetic overflow , you have for example to add and
use SafeInt library for that, and C++ doesn't by "default" catch
out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays this is why C++ is
not good for reliability.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and Run-time
checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , and
catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc. and they do not allow those bad
implicit type conversions of C++ that are not good for reliability.
 
And you can carefully read the following, it is very important:
 
https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:
 
"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."
 
Read here:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php
 
 
So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.
 
 
So for all the reasons above , i think i will stop coding in C++ and
i will quit C++.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 06 04:41PM -0400

Hello...
 
 
C++ is out of talk
 
I will not waste my time with C++, because from the start C++ was
handicaped, because it has inherited the deficiencies of C,
like i have exposed in my previous posts, i think C is "not" a
good programming language because it is "too" weakly typed and it allows
implicit type conversions that are bad for reliability etc. and this
looks like the mess of assembler, because C was "too" low level for
reliability, and since C++ has inherited from C, C++ has inherited this
too low level parts that are not good for reliability, so i will
not waste my time with C++ or with C, and i will continu
to code in "modern" Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal that is more
conservative because it has a "decent" reliability and a "decent"
performance, and those Delphi and FreePascal compilers are "powerful"
today. And i will also work with "Java", because Mono is not following
fast the developement of C# and it is not as portable as Java.
 
And here is what i wrote about C++ and Delphi and FreePascal and ADA:
 
Energy efficiency isn't just a hardware problem. Your programming
language choices can have serious effects on the efficiency of your
energy consumption. We dive deep into what makes a programming language
energy efficient.
 
As the researchers discovered, the CPU-based energy consumption always
represents the majority of the energy consumed.
 
What Pereira et. al. found wasn't entirely surprising: speed does not
always equate energy efficiency. Compiled languages like C, C++, Rust,
and Ada ranked as some of the most energy efficient languages out there.
 
Read more here:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
RAM is still expensive and slow, relative to CPUs
 
And "memory" usage efficiency is important for mobile devices.
 
So Delphi and FreePascal compilers are also still "useful" for mobile
devices, because Delphi and FreePascal are good if you are considering
time and memory or energy and memory, and the following pascal benchmark
was done with FreePascal, and the benchmark shows that C, Go and Pascal
do rather better if you're considering languages based on time and
memory or energy and memory.
 
Read again here to notice it:
 
https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html
 
 
Also Delphi is still better for many things, and you have to get more
"technical" to understand it, this is why you have to look at this
following video about Delphi that is more technical:
 
Why are C# Developers choosing Delphi to create Mobile applications
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ToSr4zOVQ
 
 
And I think there is still a "big" problem with C++ and C..
 
Look at C++ explicit conversion functions, they were introduced in
C++11, but this doesn't come by "default" in C++, like in modern Object
Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal and like in ADA , because in C++ you
have to write explicit conversion functions, so this is not good for
reliability in C++, and C++ doesn't by "default" come with range
checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed
to unsigned and arithmetic overflow , you have for example to add and
use SafeInt library for that, and C++ doesn't by "default" catch
out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays this is why C++ is
not good for reliability.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and Run-time
checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , and
catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc. and they do not allow those bad
implicit type conversions of C++ that are not good for reliability.
 
And you can carefully read the following, it is very important:
 
https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:
 
"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."
 
Read here:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php
 
 
So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.
 
 
So for all the reasons above , i think i will stop coding in C++ and
i will quit C++.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 06 03:39PM -0400

Hello...
 
More precision , read again..
 
This is my last post here on the C++ and C forums, because
i will quit C++ and stop from coding in C++..
 
I think there is still a "big" problem with C++ and C..
 
Look at C++ explicit conversion functions, they were introduced in
C++11, but this doesn't come by "default" in C++, like in modern Object
Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal and like in ADA , because in C++ you
have to write explicit conversion functions, so this is not good for
reliability in C++, and C++ doesn't by "default" come with range
checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed
to unsigned and catch arithmetic overflow , you have for example to add
and use SafeInt library for that, and C++ doesn't by "default" catch
out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays this is why C++ is
not good for reliability.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and Run-time
checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , and
catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc. and they do not allow those bad
implicit type conversions of C++ that are not good for reliability.
 
And you can carefully read the following, it is very important:
 
https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:
 
"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."
 
Read here:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php
 
 
So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.
 
 
So for all the reasons above , i think i will stop coding in C++ and
i will quit C++.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 06 03:17PM -0400

Hello...
 
 
I think there is still a "big" problem with C++ and C..
 
Look at C++ explicit conversion functions, they were introduced in
C++11, but this doesn't come by "default" in C++, like in modern Object
Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal and like in ADA , because in C++ you
have to write explicit conversion functions, so this is not good for
reliability in C++, and C++ doesn't by "default" come with range
checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed
to unsigned, you have for example to add and use SafeInt library for
that, and C++ doesn't by "default" catch out-of-bounds indices of
dynamic and static arrays and catch, this is why C++ is not good for
reliability.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and Run-time
checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , and
catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc. and they do not allow those bad
implicit type conversions of C++ that are not good for reliability.
 
And you can carefully read the following, it is very important:
 
https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/
 
 
And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:
 
"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."
 
Read here:
 
http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php
 
 
So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.
 
 
So for all the reasons above , i think i will stop coding in C++ and
i will quit C++.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)