I can't make any sense of a single sentence of that. > Sounds expensive, thanks Huh? What does? The paper is entirely free. That's why I posted a link. Go rea

I can't make any sense of a single sentence of that. > Sounds expensive, thanks Huh? What does? The paper is entirely free. That's why I posted a link. Go read it. It's not very long, it's interesting, it's accessible, it's provocative and insightful and profound. > Kernighan and Ritchie Creator of C is biased about the language he created. Shock. Pictures at 11. K&R was published in 1988. Then, your PC was to some degree a fast PDP-11. That was over 1/3 of a century ago and it is no longer even remotely true. > Also, my computer is a fast Turing machine. And so is yours. Reductio ad absurdam. Here's a talk from the inventor of the Arm architecture. It's pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOnpQgn-9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOnpQgn-9s She talks about her more recent baby, Firepath. It can, for instance, in a single opcode and a single CPU cycle load 4 separate different 32 bit integers, multiply them by 4 other 32-bit ints and store the result. (Around 25 min in but it's very worth watching the whole talk.) Her point is that C can't express stuff like this well at all. A modern CPU has dozens of execution units doing stuff in parallel, applying matrix operations and transformations to multiple different streams of data simultaneously: SIMD and MIMD combined. C has no way of even beginning to express any of this. C is no more a high-level assembly language for any 21st century CPU than a Falcon-9 reusable orbital launch vehicle is a space-going version of the Wright Flyer.