4 ms·
You are right and I agree with you, but I believe the point of the blog post was about the language designer saying "You cannot do this because it is too danger
by timwiseman 17y ago
You are right and I agree with you, but I believe the point of the blog post was about the language designer saying "You cannot do this because it is too dangerous."
That is different than an application designer saying "Within the confines of this application, I will never do this so flag and prevent if it seems like it is."
- Retric 17y agoI don't think that's really valid. How many recent languages expose raw memory access? The trick to building a great computer system / language is exposing the aspects that are most useful while hiding everything else.
- bodhi 17y agoBut the aspects that are most useful to you are different to the aspects that are most useful to me. Recently I've been trying to write a wrapper for a C library in a couple of different languages, and raw memory access would have made my life much easier. But the languages didn't have it, making my work more difficult. I think the (paraphrased) aphorism "Make the common, simple. Make the hard, possible" is apt.
- Retric 17y agothe aspects that are most useful to you are different to the aspects that are most useful to me. Which is why we have so many languages. Also, we don't really need another C or Pearl at this point, but new domains do show up. Such as GPU's with insane amounts of parallelism.