Down that path C may become somewhat of an intermediate representation language for binary interfaces. No one would write it by hand, and maybe for the better
In a loose sense, any implant makes you a cyborg, in a more strict sense implants that control something in your body do. Heart rate control by a pacer, insulin level control by an implant, hearing aid, some more complicated implants all make you a cyborg but usually not the cyborg one imagines
And COBOL is listed as third-generation on Wikipedia, too.
I now remember reading about this concept of generations in a book about Ada, it seemed fascinating then but turned out to not be as good as expected 🥲
Also, Unix Shell is listed as 4GL example. There are SPSS, MATLAB, R, and Wolphram Alpha in the same list of examples, that kind of shows where 4GL went today.
There's no such thing as "zeroith" because it's called "zeroth — being numbered zero in a series"
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn't also want to equate index and offset.
You're right that first may be read as "opposite of last", that would add to the confusion, but that's just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you're presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you're asked, that's not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
To be fair, I disagree with all the points author makes, except for performance which is important but may be less important than code clarity in different cases. I am surprised that exceptions perform that well, and I am surprised the author said that compared C++ exceptions to Rust results, but actually did the right thing and compared C++ exceptions with C++ expected first. I thought it was going to be one of those "let's compare assembly to lisp"
Yeah, I shaped my words poorly. What I meant is that errors are sort of equivalent to exceptions, but errors are first class citizens of type system, and this is an improvement over exceptions being kind of independent of type
Have you ever worked at large old corporation? Wasting money is a bit of an underestimation on that scale.
Also, not all banks use COBOL, but the ones that don't are usually much younger.
Besides, Ada would've been a better example, as it is used by telecoms and seems to be held in high regard, unlike COBOL. The only issue with Ada I heard of is that it's on par with C++ in complexity which is far from being simple.
you never know what code your function or library calls that can produce an exception
As far as I remember, there were several attempts at introducing exceptions into type system, and all have failed to a various degree. C++ abandoned the idea completely, Java has a half-assed exception signature where you can always throw an unexpected exception if it's runtime exception, mist likely there were other cases, too.
So yeah, exception as part of explicit function signature is a vast improvement, I completely agree
I feel like this will have zero protection against
c++
if (result.isSuccess()) {
handle_error(result.error);
} else {
do_something(result.value);
}
Besides, this is exactly what the comment said about having to constantly check for return values at call site. I think this may be mitigated by some clever macro-magic, but that will become a mess fast.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I think that what is needed is just a bit of syntactic sugar, e.g. Rust has ? for returning compatible errors without looking into them. That seems to be powered by Try trait, that may be a monad, but I am not fluent enough to check if it formally is.
It's used because the ones who use it have enough money to pay for any problems that may arise from it's use, and known problems are deemed better than unknown ones.
It is a viable model when you have enough money and resources, but a conservative one
That way we'll just find maintainers went near extinct over time, just like COBOL developers that are as rare as they are expensive. Only Linux kernel isn't a bank, and maybe will not have as much money to pay to rare developers capable of maintaining C codebase
Down that path C may become somewhat of an intermediate representation language for binary interfaces. No one would write it by hand, and maybe for the better