X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned:	amavisd-new at neurotica.com
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore:	I do not consent to surveillance, prick
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com;
	s=default; t=1436300554;
	bh=ejja2Uz76O2ljUdxmpojkjNqvMoFRi4jm4L9QuA/y0c=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=TD20St2TY3AFc5RhQPSjNFyQXl+jIUk+wRV2VDesYJs+U2/g5dYMOJj8nOZ/Up2Eo
	F7LRsMnqr/uHhPO4jc0IA9X9IkLzwth4lqjSGlJTEDilT/mdoIlkHRNXGrBi2wJIW9
	bQQgCYEqPKsSribCdKf8myBmDNjpatV14BAGZwyM=
Message-ID:	<559C350A.3040808@neurotica.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:22:34 -0400
From:	"Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
References:	<1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436293439 DOT 678 DOT 71 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C24B4 DOT 3040007 AT neurotica DOT com> <20150707193304 DOT GA14821 AT recycle DOT lbl DOT gov>
In-Reply-To:	<20150707193304.GA14821@recycle.lbl.gov>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 07/07/2015 03:33 PM, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:12:52PM -0400, Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>   All of that is purely subjective.  FOR ME, yes, C is nearly the
>> ultimate in fun.  My C code has far fewer bugs than my code in nearly
>> any other language, my code size (the binary...which is all that really
>> matters!) is a fraction of anything else, and "better"...well that just
>> spells "subjective" right there.
> 
> There's a lot to like about Python etc.  But C is an established
> ISO standard.  I have C code that I wrote 20 years ago that runs
> flawlessly.  Can't say that about Python.  The best you can do is
> claim that since Python is open-source and written in C, you can
> freeze an arbitrary Python version and run it forever.  But that
> is somewhat impractical, given the goals of grabbing python modules
> from wherever, and given the size of its code base.

  Absolutely.

> I'd like to see at least one of Python, Lua, Nim, Julia, ... reach
> the level of maturity and stability that we have in C today.  But
> that clearly won't happen quickly.  And it's hard to crystal-ball
> gaze and figure out which one deserves our brain cells today.

  Too true.  It's always a gamble.  I believe the world truly needs a
language that's established and standardized to the level of C, but that
isn't the abortion that is C++ or the lumbering pig that is virtualized
Java, that compiles all the way to a native executable binary.

> For all the javascript bashing I heard here, I'd like to point out
> that it, too, shows up as an ISO/IEC standard.

  True.  Now if one could only compile it to a native binary.  It's not
that bad of a language, overall.

              -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

- Raw text -