Just a last comment, we're kind of off the rails here. I'll read your reply but I won't answer, I hope you're OK with that!
> What you're presenting is a Turing tarpit kind of argument - totally irrelevant to anybody with a sense for practicality.
Not really, it requires very little to do so. Here's how to make fixnum arithmetic go wroom-wroom: https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/1380#1380
Does that look like a Turing tar-pit to you? Scroll down to the assembly.
I mean, I do think that C-level safety is unacceptable though.
> [...] and half wrong. Yes, UNIX is the worst useable OS, except all the alternatives.
You happen to be misinformed regarding this. It's true today regarding Linux perhaps, but not back then.
>I suggest actually reading my comments, because I've written all that I have to say. In one sentence,
Didn't you just say that empirical evidence points towards C being fast? That's not enough.
Just a last comment, we're kind of off the rails here. I'll read your reply but I won't answer, I hope you're OK with that!
> What you're presenting is a Turing tarpit kind of argument - totally irrelevant to anybody with a sense for practicality.
Not really, it requires very little to do so. Here's how to make fixnum arithmetic go wroom-wroom: https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/1380#1380
Does that look like a Turing tar-pit to you? Scroll down to the assembly.
I mean, I do think that C-level safety is unacceptable though.
> [...] and half wrong. Yes, UNIX is the worst useable OS, except all the alternatives.
You happen to be misinformed regarding this. It's true today regarding Linux perhaps, but not back then.
>I suggest actually reading my comments, because I've written all that I have to say. In one sentence,
Didn't you just say that empirical evidence points towards C being fast? That's not enough.