On 25 Aug, 01:00, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 24, 4:17 pm, Richard Owlett <rowl...@pcnetinc.com> wrote: > > > Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > > [SNIP ;] > > > > The real problem here is that C, Forth and C++ lack automatic garbage > > > collection. If I have a program in which I have to worry about memory > > > leaks (as described above), I would be better off to ignore C, Forth > > > and C++ and just use a language that supports garbage collection. Why > > > should I waste my time carefully freeing up heap space? I will very > > > likely not find everything but yet have a few memory leaks anyway. > > > IOW Hugh has surpassed GIGO to achieve AGG - > > *A*utomatic*G*arbage*G*eneration ;) > > The C programmers reading this are likely wondering why I'm being > attacked. The reason is that Elizabeth Rather has made it clear to > everybody that this is what she > wants:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/c... > > Every Forth programmer who aspires to get a job at Forth Inc. is > obliged to attack me. Attacking my software that I posted on the FIG > site is preferred, but personal attacks work too. It is a loyalty > test.
Complete bollox. A pox on your persecution fantasies. This isn't about Elizabeth Rather or Forth Inc. It's about your massive ego and blind ignorance. Your example of writing code with memory leaks *and not caring because it's a waste of your time* makes me think that you've never been a programmer of any sort. Ever. In a commercial environment, your slide rule code would be rejected during unit testing, and you'd be fired and your code sent to the bit bucket. This isn't about CS BS; this is about making sure that banks accounts square, that planes fly, that nuclear reactors stay sub-critical; that applications can run 24 by 7, 365 days a year without requiring any human attention. So who designs and writes compilers for fail-safe systems? Who designs and writes operating systems that will run for years, non-stop? Where do they get the assurance that what they're writing is correct -- and provably so? From people that do research, hard math, have degrees, and design algorithms and develop all those other abstract ideas you seem so keen to reject as high-falutin' nonsense. I'd rather poke myself in the eye than run any of the crap you've written. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
