Re: 'Unknown' and three-valued logic (was: Example where Euphoria ...)
It is all C's fault.
I remember my first Toolswork C-compiler. It was absolutely a =
disasterous experience for someone who's only experience was with Basic =
interpreters. First the syntax errors.... then, if the program was not =
right, looose pointers and that kind of things, causeing the program to =
go beserk and easily crashed whole computer.
I am wondering how much C has shaped other programming languages, too? =
When other languages are created using C, then the "*" operator are most =
likely to be a C call? And the same goes for the relational operators ( =
=3D,>...) so that the other languages created with C are likely to =
inherit the same weaknesses as C? And C does not reserve any flag for a =
variable being instanciated or not, it just uses whatever it find at =
that memory address, there is no checking about the variable has been =
set or not (that is very speedy ... which the designers of C wanted it =
to be).
So basicly, it the program is not right, then output will be rubbish =
values... not nil values. When you tell a C program to multiply to =
variables that are not set, then the result is rubbish... and there is =
no obvious way to test if the values are rubbish or not.
When C evaluates a conditional statements upon a boolean value .... that =
is not set ... then C branches in the wrong direction ...(and there is =
no obvious way to test if current branch is caused by rubbish =
branchin)... instead of branching in the direction it should have gone =
when branching is unsolved.
It could all have been different... if there had been a nil flag for all =
variables .. then all the compilers created with C would also have been =
different ... because if C had been different, then the other compilers =
would have inherited a lot of that behavior ... the best of it, =
hopefully?
It is all C's fault, behaving like an idiot.
Regards
Rom
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
