|
|
noice? not cool?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a C programmer, so forgive my eventual stupid question: there is/was also a language called 'D' which claimed to enhance some of C flaws. I'm not a D programmer either. Anyone here with enough ZIG and D experience to compare both?
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing against D, but AFAIK (could be wrong) it's always had a garbage collector. I heard talks about them trying to make it optional, but not sure if that's happened yet. If I was gonna use a GC language, may as well use Go that's backed by Google ya know.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, that's quite a huge difference!
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, Zig is a language that promotes the DOD (Data Oriented Design) style. Its creator, Andrew Kelley has posted a lot of material about DOD and the like.
There are several online resources about DOD, including videos by the author of Zig.
Also articles like: Data Oriented Design: A Way of Thinking - Hello C++[^]
Regards
modified 5-Aug-24 5:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, I'll have to check it out. Thanks.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I should add something like 'take care, toilet in picture'?
|
|
|
|
|
Not if one of them involves driving the porcelain bus.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Can you handle two emergencies at the same time[^] Nope, just nope. You can only switch from one task to another in a fast pace, but still not handle it at the same time.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You can, however, consider the task to be multithreaded. Such as an organ player both doing the pedals, the right hand and the left hand. Or a car driver who both manages the steering wheel, the brake pedal and the speed pedal. (With electric cars, calling it the 'gas pedal' is misleading ).
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: With electric cars, calling it the 'gas pedal' is misleading ).
Among English-speakers, it never was the "gas pedal". I was always the "accelerator pedal", as opposed to the "brake pedal".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm so the brake pedal initiates the brakes.
And the accelerator pedal initiates the accelerator?
Or why not the throttle pedal? The Model T had a throttle but that was a lever (hand) rather than pedal.
|
|
|
|
|
"foot feed" back in the day.
>64
It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
No. With any mechanical system, failures happen. For safety, there needs to be a human available to adjust for the failure. According to the Smithsonian Channel's Air Disasters series, there are many times when the instruments, sensors, and automation indicate normal operation, but the pilot's seat-of-the-pants instincts as an aviator tell a different tale: something is wrong. This instinct or feeling has made the difference between life and a fatal crash.
During an emergency, if the airplane needs to land now!, the automation will look for an airport. A human pilot can, and has, considered other options, including highways, river levees, beaches, a farmer's field, and even the Hudson River. In each of those successful cases, no one was killed, there were no serious injuries, and the airplane was repaired and back in service within a month or two.
On longer flights, it is imperative that the task of piloting the airplane be switched of between at least two pilots to relieve strain, stress, fatigue, in some cases boredom, and to allow the pilot to stretch, move, and take care of other human functions.
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
Joke answer, and this comes from an American background, considering the image.
Depends.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not get the proliferation of Python "software" , mainly because almost every time I "update / upgrade " Ubuntu I see lots of Python activities.
If it is so popular, why it needs "updating / upgrading " ?
|
|
|
|
|
jana_hus wrote: why it needs "updating / upgrading " ? I suppose that just because it is popular. There is more eyes that might find things to repair / people willing to do a new wrap around something or develope some new functionality.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
When I first encountered Python, we were still back in the days when there were people claiming that Python development were just soooo much faster, because you didn't have to wait for the code to be compiled before running. This was a very common argument in favor of interpreted languages way back to BASIC.
Showing those people that pressing F5 gets the program running almost immediately after a code update has no impact. At one occasion, I showed one of those Python guys a compilation log showing that on our main compiler server, a complete rebuild compiled on the average 8 modules per second; it had no impact.
I haven't been around Python code development for 3-4 years, but even then, a number of Pythogonists brought up this argument that you could just type and run, no waiting for compilation. This was particularly prominent among the juniors, two years earlier still in college. So it seems like universities and colleges push this idea that even incremental compiling, precompiled headers and similar speed-ups cannot possibly make compilation fast enough to be useful for development work.
Truth is, of course, that Python has been high academic fashion for a number of years, and you don't risk your academic reputation by checking out un-fashionable alternatives, which might possibly indicate that high academic fashions doesn't match reality. It is much safer to run with the herd you are in.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: high academic fashions doesn't match reality I think that in many cases, programming languages being one such, that is generally very true.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: you could just type and run, no waiting for compilation. Yup. Type. Run. And if you by happenchance execute the new code you just typed, discover the syntax errors at runtime instead of compile-time!
|
|
|
|
|
My "assembly language " mentor first lesson was how to write "modular" code - using subroutines.
I do question the " code and run" approach because it . in MY opinion, leads to " let's try this" guessing - instead of spending productive time constructing solid code.
(Besides "basic" was OK to use for years...)
I do agree, it probably is OK approach when only few lines of "embedded" code are involved.
|
|
|
|