[TUHS] Minimum Array Sizes in 16 bit C (was Maximum)

[ron minnich]

Data point. I hope this is not too far out of TUHS scope, but ... you asked.
In 2010, we at sandia journeyed to Usenix to take Russ's course on Go.

At that time, we had created megatux, all written in C, all based on
earlier HPC work at LANL, that allowed us to run 80,000 or so Windows VMs
on a 400 node cluster, and from there run real malware to study it (and, in
one case, fix a bug :-).

We got done Russ's course, and on the way home, I said "we're moving it all
to Go." Nobody disagreed. We never once regretted that decision.

On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 6:47 PM Luther Johnson <luther.johnson at makerlisp.com>
wrote:

> 'Go' is also a pretty C-like advanced C kind of thing. What do Go
> writers think of it vs. C, for safety, reliability, clarity of
> expression, etc. ?
>
> On 09/29/2024 06:09 PM, Luther Johnson wrote:
> > C# addresses some of the things being discussed here. I've used it, I
> > don't care for it all that much, I prefer straight, not-at-all modern
> > C, but I think there are probably a few dialects over the years
> > (Objective C ?) that have addressed some of these desires for a
> > "better C, but not C++". Do others here have comments on these
> > inspired by C, kind of C-like, but with a few other computer science
> > components, thrown into the language machine ?
> >
> > On 09/29/2024 05:36 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >> It doesn't have to be that way, C could be evolved, I built a very C
> >> like language (to the point that one of my engineers, who hated the
> >> new language on principle, fixed a bug in some diffs that flew by,
> >> he thought he was fixing a bug in C).  No pointers, reference counted
> >> garbage collection, pass by value or reference, switch values could be
> >> anything, values, variables, regular expressions, etc.
> >>
> >> If I had infinite energy and money, I'd fund a gcc dialect of that C.
> >> Alas, I don't.  But C is very fixable.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:56:47AM +1000, Rob Pike wrote:
> >>> I'm saying the exact opposite: they are unavoidably unsafe.
> >>>
> >>> -rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 8:21???AM Rich Salz <rich.salz at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> C and C++ have become non-portable and dangerously insecure, as
> >>>> well as
> >>>>> often very surprising to the point that the US government arguing
> >>>>> against
> >>>>> using them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I thought their main arguments were to use memory-safe languages.
> >>>> Are you
> >>>> saying the C language can be as safe s go, rust, etc., by language
> >>>> design?
> >>>> (I don't think you are, but the sentence I quoted kinda implies
> >>>> that, at
> >>>> least to me.)
> >>>>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20240929/273ae38e/attachment.htm>