From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 16.10.2025 11:43, BGB wrote:   
   > On 10/15/2025 11:37 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >> On 15.10.2025 03:13, BGB wrote:   
   >>> On 10/13/2025 11:29 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >>>> On 09.10.2025 05:49, BGB wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/8/2025 2:04 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 08.10.2025 19:29, BGB wrote:   
      
      
   >>>>> Like, the passage of time still hasn't totally eliminated FORTRAN and   
   >>>>> COBOL.   
   [...]   
   >>> Apparently they still exist in some places, mostly as languages that no   
   >>> one uses.   
   >>   
   >> (In scientific areas FORTRAN is obviously still widely used. And   
   >> this is no "[geographically] local phenomenon" as I learned.)   
   > [...]   
   >   
   > Basically, where some people still use FORTRAN and COBOL, but relatively   
   > few people know how to write or maintain code in these languages (so   
   > often the only hope is to try to get people to rewrite it in some other   
   > language).   
      
   Incidentally, last night I read some Wikipedia entry that mentioned   
   that FORTRAN is actually still on rank 10(!) on some prominent list   
   of used programming languages. (Sorry, I've no reference.)   
      
   As I wrote in my previous post, it's still used in applied science,   
   and the programs are maintained and new features added. Of course I   
   cannot tell whether the programmers learned FORTRAN from scratch or   
   only by example or paragon given the existing sources.   
      
   (Beyond the qualitative article I read I can't tell how many people   
   actually use that language. - If your statement is based on some   
   quantitative evidence I'm curious to hear about actual numbers.)   
      
   >> [...]   
   >   
   > I think (long ago) I was in elementary school and someone showed me   
   > Pascal, but it didn't go anywhere.   
      
   While not professionally I've written "recreationally" quite some   
   programs in Pascal; it was a very nice language, I liked it. Sadly   
   my Pascal sources got lost in course of time.   
      
   >   
   > I later learned C, and mostly stuck with C. I sorta learned programming   
   > in C by poking around at C code (mostly stuff released by "id Software"   
   > and trying to understand how it works). But, in these early years, my   
   > attempts at messing with the code tended to cause it to fall apart into   
   > an unusable mess of bugs.   
      
   But don't you think that might be - if not significantly, then to   
   some degree at least - a result of the "non fail-safe" design of "C"?   
      
   (The time I stumbled across "C" I already had got to know a bunch of   
   higher-level languages, so I wasn't - errm.. - too impressed by "C";   
   there were only few things that I found to be somewhat interesting.)   
      
   > [...]   
   >   
   > Meanwhile:   
   > Pascal, Ada: Sorta exist, but seemingly hardly no one uses them, so   
   > rarely seen in the wild.   
      
   (Remember my comment about significant Ada application areas.)   
      
   >>>   
   >>> The great sin here of C++ is mostly things like iostream.   
   >>   
   >> It may appear so at first glance. But beyond some unfortunate design   
   >> details it allows very flexible and powerful (yet readable) software   
   >> designs in complex software architectures. (The problem is that folks   
   >> seem to watch and stumble over the pebbles and thereby missing the   
   >> landscape; figuratively formulated.)   
   >>   
   >   
   > While it is in premise easier to extend with new types, etc,   
      
   And that's the important thing here. (Also in other OO languages.)   
      
   > using it does hurt build times pretty bad.   
   >   
   > When using C++, usually just stuck with "printf()" and friends.   
      
   (I don't like it's additional interpretation level, and also dislike   
   its lacking type-safety. - Yes, some tools (meanwhile) seem to make   
   an effort to check at least the static formatters, but this inherent   
   design-shortcoming is nothing I'd advertise as big feature.)   
      
   > [...]   
   >   
   > A possible alternative to templates could have been to trick out C   
   > macros similar to the macro-processing in many assemblers (with   
   > multi-line macros and conditional logic inside of macros, ...). Still   
   > ugly, but could have been cheaper to implement.   
      
   ("C" macros is also nothing that I'd advertise as a great language   
   design concept.)   
      
   Janis   
      
   > [...]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)