From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <108tbpq$29q30$3@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 8/29/2025 5:38 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <108t0d4$249vm$11@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 8/29/2025 9:17 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> In article <108g8kk$33isk$1@dont-email.me>,   
   >>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/24/2025 7:27 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>>>> In article <108dlq4$2fi6h$4@dont-email.me>,   
   >>>>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 8/19/2025 1:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> In article <10823ei$3pb8v$3@dont-email.me>,   
   >>>>>>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Whether we follow tradition and call them integer and cardinal   
   >>>>>>>>> or more modern style and call them int and uint is less important.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I would argue that, at this point, there's little need for a   
   >>>>>>>> generic "int" type anymore, and that types representing integers   
   >>>>>>>> as understood by the machine should explicitly include both   
   >>>>>>>> signedness and width.  An exception may be something like,   
   >>>>>>>> `size_t`, which is platform-dependent, but when transferred   
   >>>>>>>> externally should be given an explicit size.  A lot of the   
   >>>>>>>> guesswork and folklore that goes into understanding the   
   >>>>>>>> semantics of those things just disappears when you're explicit.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The integer types should have well defined width.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And they could also be called int32 and uint32.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That seems to be in fashion in low level languages   
   >>>>>>> competing with C.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Many higher level languages just define that int is 32 bit,   
   >>>>>>> but don't show it in the name.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If by "many higher level languages" you mean languages in the   
   >>>>>> JVM and CLR ecosystem, then sure, I guess so.  But it's not   
   >>>>>> universal, and I don't see how it's an improvement.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That are two huge group of languages with a pretty big   
   >>>>> market share in business applications.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Market share is not the same as influence, and while the JVM/CLR   
   >>>> languages _do_ have a lot of users, that does not imply that all   
   >>>> are good languages.  In fact, only a handful of languages in   
   >>>> each family have any significant adoption, and I don't think PL   
   >>>> designers are mining them for much inspiration these days.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Again, not universal, nor really an improvement over just using   
   >>>> explicitly sized types.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is a huge domain that are totally dominated by two approaches:   
   >>> [snip]   
   >>   
   >> So?  You referred to "many higher level languages".  That is   
   >> qualitatively different than "a small number of languages with a   
   >> huge share of the market."   
   >   
   >Yes - that is two different statements.   
      
   Correct...   
      
   >But they are both true.   
      
   ...but irrelevant.  I was referring to your specific statement;   
   not making any point about the other.   
      
   If you'd like to make a point about the popularity of langauges,   
   by all means do so.  But moving the goal posts by conflating   
   dissimilar things isn't really useful.   
      
   >And the second qualifies the first in the sense that the   
   >many are actually some that matter not pure exotic.   
      
   Nope.  Only a few CLR/JVM langauges actually matter as far as   
   programming langauge design goes.  I'd say Java, Clojure, Scala,   
   Kotlin, C#, and F#/F* are about it.  I would have previously   
   argued that M# was important in this sense as well, but Midori   
   was canceled and it was basically a dialect of C# anyway.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)