Read again, i correct

[Sky89]

Hello..

Read again, i correct


I think C++ and C have many problems because they are "too" weakly
typed, here is another problem of C++ and C, look at this C++ example:


===

#include <conio.h>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <stdint.h>



double y;


void a1(unsigned int a)
{
cout << a ;

}

int main()
{

unsigned int b;
int a;



y=3.4;


a1(y);


}

==


This will be accepted by C++ because the parameter a of a1() will equal
3, but this is "not" correct for "reliability" and it is not accepted by
Delphi and FreePascal and ADA because they are more strongly typed than
C++ and C and they will give an error that the type of the parameter a
of a1() is not the same as the type of y.


Also Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and
Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned ,
and catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this
exception of ERangeError etc.

But C++ and C don't have range checking and don't have many Run-time
checks etc. so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good for
reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.

You can carefully read the following, it is very important:

https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/


And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:

"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."

Read here:

http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php


So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that C++ and C don't have range checking and many
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[Mr Flibble]

On 21/05/2018 00:14, Sky89 wrote:
> Hello..
>
> Read again, i correct

Fuck off you egregious cunt.

[snip]
/Flibble

--
"Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say."

[Sky89]

Hello...


I explain my work..

I am an inventor of scalable algorithms and other softwares..

Now you have to understand me more, why do you think i am posting on CPUs
and computers ?

Because parallel programming will "like" extend rapidly Moors law,
because look for example at this:

Intel: 1,000-core Processor Possible

An experimental Intel chip shows the feasibility of building processors
with 1,000 cores, an Intel researcher has asserted.

The architecture for the Intel 48-core Single Chip Cloud Computer (SCC)
processor is "arbitrarily scalable," said Intel researcher Timothy
Mattson, during a talk at the Supercomputer 2010 conference being held
this week in New Orleans.

Read more here:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/211238/intel_1000core_processor_possible.html


And look at this:

3D stacked computer chips could make computers 1,000 times faster

Read more here:

https://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/3d-stacked-computer-chips-43243/


This is why parallel computing and 3D stacking of memory and CPUs
beyond 1000 cores of Intel above, will make CPUs and computers rapidly
very powerful and this will permit to revolutionize rapidly
artificial intelligence and genetics etc., Look for example at the
following video to understand more:

Michio Kaku: Genetics: The Key to Immortality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsHuGQieyjY