From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MISSING_HEADERS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 12800 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2023 01:50:24 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 1 Feb 2023 01:50:24 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308E9423E0; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:50:22 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1675216222; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=fpy/ZdmjkX9myqnguEzxi24+1fWHkkDVGoXsVsyiTxU=; b=hedbhkSnVXmk+IkV3rU9eRprwP3dkNBCfpPr8Rcq6SMXXSdxYlSjMMMjhPKMfQ5EZodkgK /np/KHnUGtaVX01QspWaBMdbB/a0cRLjCqj5fYLgSt1zJUskpILFJ6HHzMGcSqeu5rTeu6 E2/+YDG7sowu5TthgS8zZ+3uigGVJ8I= Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C73B5423A2 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:50:17 +1000 (AEST) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 01:50:05 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1675216215; x=1675475415; bh=fpy/ZdmjkX9myqnguEzxi24+1fWHkkDVGoXsVsyiTxU=; h=Date:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=Xn/fPYFo89tm4VNcFS2DxuG1uKvtkRp/n2LQcDj0TQIfA/LnDjkRzAGhqsgE9Y8Jl LdadJuxLFxFVDsf8FAwSpfKGD1rLp9GUHeoMjBPEBXqsaK+n+4m1xjH+omG8A2Jycr B5dlfnBcoqU/fRRzPgRVB4kFFM13uzwyT2sWfHCivPDEV1gd3n0UkfT0xXc7V13bm6 d3a6jn7eIZItoaEev11y/sNigKLiRpA+nSJc9B6LI/NBLu7xAh770Tz/HE4Jr7oIJc L73V5KHsRZrcAOVj7cu4hLJF/4sjHzDrmlnHHryF8oS9xtCTJMK8+shLJxcMdiJvQf N4Oapt3FLwTGA== Cc: COFF Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20230201004023.rHE9j%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <20230201004939.GB6988@mcvoy.com> Feedback-ID: 35591162:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: SAKWPEEVIAELTA5PVUVRBCXIBQFKOXHZ X-Message-ID-Hash: SAKWPEEVIAELTA5PVUVRBCXIBQFKOXHZ X-MailFrom: segaloco@protonmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: [COFF from TUHS] Re: yet another C discussion (YACD) and: Rust is not C++ List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: From: segaloco via COFF Reply-To: segaloco COFF'd > I think general software engineering knowledge and experience cannot be > 'obsoleted' or made less relevant by better languages. If they help, > great, but you have to do the other part too. As languages advance and > get better at catching (certain kinds of) mistakes, I worry that > engineers are not putting enough time into observation and understanding > of how their programs actually work (or do not). I think you nailed it there mentioning engineers in that one of the growing= norms these days is making software development more accessible to a diver= se set of backgrounds. No longer does a programming language have to just = bridge the gap between, say, an expert mathematician and a compute device. Now there are languages to allow UX designers to declaratively define inter= faces, for data scientists to functionally define algorithms, and WYSIWYG e= ditors for all sorts of things that were traditionally handled by hammering= out code. The concern of describing a program through a standard language= and the concern that language then describing the operations of a specific= device have been growing more and more decoupled as time goes on, and that= then puts a lot of the responsibility for "correctness" on those creating = all these various languages. Whatever concern an engineer originally had to some matter of memory safety= , efficiency, concurrency, etc. is now being decided by some team working o= n the given language of the week, sometimes to great results, other times t= o disastrous ones. On the flip side, the person consuming the language or = components then doesn't need to think about these things, which could go ei= ther way. If they're always going to work in this paradigm where they're o= ffloading the concern of memory safety to their language architect of choic= e, then perhaps they're not shorting themselves any. However, they're then= technically not seeing the big picture of what they're working on, which c= ontributes to the diverse quality of software we have today. Long story short, most people don't know how their programs work because th= ey aren't really "their" programs so much as their assembly of a number of = off-the-shelf or slightly tweaked components following the norms of whateve= r school of thought they may originate in (marketing, finance, graphic desi= gn, etc.). Sadly, this decoupling likely isn't going away, and we're only = bound to see the percentage of "bad" software increase over time. That's t= he sort of change that over time leads to people then changing their opinio= ns of what "bad software" is. Look at how many people gleefully accept the= landscape of smart-device "apps".... - Matt G.