[rebootthesystem]

This is a typical misinterpretation of the reality of programming. There is no such thing as undefined behavior. Once you get down to bits and bytes in memory and instructions the processor does EXACTLY what it is designed to do and told to do by the programmer.

Despite what many might believe the universe didn't come to a halt when all we had was C and other "primitive" languages. The world ran and runs on massive amounts of code written in C. And any issues were due to programmers, not the language.

In the end it all reduces down to data and code in memory. It doesn't matter what language it is created with. Languages that are closer to the metal require the programmer to be highly skilled and also carefully plan and understand the code down to the machine level.

Higher level languages --say, APL, which I used professionally for about ten years-- disconnect you from all of that. They pad the heck out of data structures and use costly (time and space) code to access these data structures.

Object oriented languages add yet another layer of code on top of it all.

In the end a programmer can do absolutely everything done with advanced OO languages in assembler, or more conveniently, C. The cost is in the initial planning and the fact that a much more knowledgeable and skilled programmer is required in order to get close to the machine.

As an example, someone who thinks of the machine as something that can evaluate list comprehensions in Python and use OO to access data elements has no clue whatsoever about what and how might be happening at the memory level with their creations. Hence code bloat and slow code.

I am not, even for a second, proposing that the world must switch to pure C. There is justification for being lazy and using languages that operate at a much higher level of abstraction. Like I said above, I used APL for about ten years and it was fantastic.

My point is that blaming C for a lack of understanding or awareness of what happens at low levels isn't very honest at all. The processor does exactly what you, the programmer, tell it do to. Save failures (whether by design or such things as radiation triggered) I don't know of any processor that creatively misinterprets or modifies instructions loaded from memory, instructions put there by a programmer through one method or another.

Stop blaming languages and become better software developers.

[kazinator]

> This is a typical misinterpretation of the reality of programming. There is no such thing as undefined behavior. Once you get down to bits and bytes in memory and instructions the processor does EXACTLY what it is designed to do and told to do by the programmer.

Sure.

Only problem is, all you have to do is change some code generation option on the compiler command line and millions of lines of code now produce different instructions. Or, keep those options the same, but use a different version of that compiler: same thing.

> The processor does exactly what you, the programmer, tell it do to.

Well, yes; and when you're doing that through C, you're telling the processor what to do via sort of autistic middleman.

C is not the low level; you can understand your processor on a very detailed level and that expertise won't mean a thing if you don't understand the ways in which you can be screwed by the C language that have nothing to do with that processor.

I suspect that you don't know some important things about C if you think it's just a straightforward way to instruct the processor at the low level.

> Languages that are closer to the metal require the programmer to be highly skilled and also carefully plan and understand the code down to the machine level.

C isn't one of these languages. (At least not any more!) It's considerably far from the metal, and requires a somewhat different set of skills than what the assembly language coder brings to the table, yet without entirely rendering useless what that coder does bring to the table.

[rebootthesystem]

> all you have to do is change some code generation option on the compiler command line and millions of lines of code now produce different instructions.

It is the responsibility of a capable software engineer to KNOW these things and NOT break code in this manner.

You are trying to blame compilers and languages for the failure of modern software engineers to truly understand what they are doing and the machine they are doing it on.

If you truly understand the chosen language, the compiler, the machine and take the time to plan, guess what happens? You write excellent code that has few, if any bugs, and everyone walks away happy.

And you sure as heck are not confused or challenged in any way by pointers. I mean, for Picard's sake, they are just memory addresses. I'll never understand why people get wrapped around an axle with the concept.

I wonder, when people program in, say Python, do they take the time to know --and I mean really know-- how various data types are stored, represented and managed in memory? My guess is that 99.999% of Python programmers have no clue. And I might be short by a few zeros.

We've reached a moment in software engineering were people call themselves "software engineers" and yet have no clue what the very technologies they are using might be doing under the hood. And then, when things go wrong, they blame the language, the compiler, the platform and the phase of the moon. They never stop to think that it is their professional duty to KNOW these things and KNOW how to use the tools correctly in the context of the hardware they might be addressing.

I've also been working with programmable logic and FPGA's, well, ever since the stuff was invented. Hardware is far less forgiving than software --and costly. It forces one to be far more aware of, quite literally, what ever single bit is doing and how it is being handled. One has to understand what the funny words one types translate into at the hardware level. You have to think hardware as you type what looks like software. You see flip-flops and shift registers in your statements.

This is very much the way a skilled software developer used to function before people started to pull farther and farther away from the machine. It is undeniable that today's software is bloated and slow. Horribly so. And 100% of that is because we've gotten lazy. Not more productive, lazy.

[kazinator]

> It is the responsibility of a capable software engineer

Nobody is saying that it's a acceptable for an engineer to screw up and then blame it on the tools (compiler, slide rule, calculator, ...).

However, if something goes wrong in your work, it's foolish not to recognize the role of the tools, even though it's not acceptable to blame them as a public position.

As objective observers of a situation gone wrong in engineering, we do have the privilege of assigning blame between people and tools. Tools are the work of people also. The choice of tools is also susceptible to criticism. We have to be able to take an objective look at our own work.

[bendmorris]

I don't understand how anyone can spend a career in software development, and still have such a poor understanding of the process. Space and time are far from the only concerns.

>As an example, someone who thinks of the machine as something that can evaluate list comprehensions in Python and use OO to access data elements has no clue whatsoever about what and how might be happening at the memory level with their creations. Hence code bloat and slow code.

Not having to care about details that aren't contextually important is a good thing. When someone is constrained more by development time than by computational resources, working in a high level language means you're explicitly shunting low level concerns so you can spend more time dealing with domain logic.

There are many situations where finishing something faster, which will run 10x slower and use more memory, is a worthwhile tradeoff.

[rebootthesystem]

Nowhere did I say that modern languages don't have their place and advantages. I use them all the time. In fact, I prefer them when they make sense for precisely the reasons you point out.

You might be reading far more into my comments than what they were intended to address. Namely that blaming languages for the failings of software engineers is dishonest. A true software engineer will know the chosen tools and languages and use them appropriately. Blaming C for pointer issues is dishonest and misguided. There's nothing wrong with the language if used correctly.

[jibal]

BTW, even physical machines have undefined behavior, when values exceed the specs and there's no telling what might happen ... I remember the days when people would destroy their monitors by giving them scan frequencies they can't handle. And there are CPU operations that have undefined behavior due to race conditions ... you can get one of several outcomes.

But there's no arguing with extreme ignorance coupled with extreme unwarranted arrogance.

[rebootthesystem]

> BTW, even physical machines have undefined behavior, when values exceed the specs and there's no telling what might happen

And if you (plural) are an ENGINEER, it is your JOB to KNOW these things and prevent them from happening.

I get the sense that the term "software engineer" has been extended so far that we grant it to absolute hacks who know nothing about what they are doing and what their responsibilities might be. Blaming a language, compiler and machine are perfect examples of this.

True engineering isn't about HOPING things will work. It is about KNOWING things will work. And testing to ensure success.

I've been involved in aerospace for quite some time. People can die. This isn't a game. And it requires real engineering not "oh, shit!" engineering that finds problems by pure chance. Sadly, though, we are not perfect and things do happen. It isn't for lack of trying though.

[kazinator]

> I've been involved in aerospace for quite some time.

That's nice; not all engineering is aerospace and not all aerospace processes are always appropriate everywhere else.

Even in aerospace, still I don't want to write code that depends on knowing exactly how the compiler works. I will write code mostly to the language spec. Then treat the compiler as a black box: obtain the object code, and verify that it implements the source code (whose own correctness is separately validated).

Safety is not treated the same way regardless of project. For instance, an electronic device that has a maximum potential difference of 12V inside the chassis is not designed the same way, from a safety point of view, as one that deals with 1200V.

[jibal]

rebootthesystem seems to be a chatbot that specializes in shouting cliches and non sequiturs. His responses to me indicate a complete failure to understand what I wrote. smh

[rebootthesystem]

Nice try at a weak ad hominem.

Your parent comment is utterly irrelevant. The conversation is about the C language and the perception some seem to have that it has problems. My only argument here is that a capable software engineer knows the language and tools he or she uses and has no such problems, particularly with a language as simple as C. Things like pointer "surprises" are 100% pilot error, not a deficiency of the language itself.

[jibal]

> There is no such thing as undefined behavior.

Read the C Standard. (Do you even understand that it defines an abstract machine? Do you have any idea what an abstraction is?)

[rebootthesystem]

You just proved my point. A programmer who truly knows (a) the machine they are working with and (b) the language they are using will know exactly how to use both in order to deliver intended results.

For example, reading the processor data book to understand it, the instruction set and how it works could be crucially important in certain contexts. I would not expect someone doing Javascript to do this but how many have studied the virtual machine in depth?

Don't confuse being lazy with problems with languages and compilers.

[kazinator]

That programmer could be Mel!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7869771

[rebootthesystem]

That's a great story, thanks!

I once worked with on a project that needed specialized timing in relation to high speed (well, 38.4k) RS422 communications. I don't remember all of the details, it's been decades. I remember one of the engineers came up with a super clever way to trigger the time measurement and actually measure it. Rather than using a UART he bit-banged the communications and actually used the serial stream for timing (meaning the one's and zero's). It worked amazingly well. If I remember correctly that was a Z80 processor with limited resources.

[jibal]

"You just proved my point."

This is the least intelligent and least intellectually honest hackneyed phrase on the internet. In this case it's a complete non sequitur. It would tell me a lot about you if you hadn't already made it evident. Over and out, forever.

[rebootthesystem]

A shift from logic to ad hominem is always an indication that there's nothing further to discuss. Live long and prosper.