Then you missed the argument, the parent was of the opinion that the numbers are huge and the EFFECT is small.

Hm, seems you are slow in catching up with those many posts on this thread.

Originally in C static "members" where not shared it is the opposite, they where private only visible inside the compilation unit where they where defined..

So why do you suggest "shared" as a replacement of "static"?

Also in Java or C# static does not mean shared, so why do you suggest this word?

Obviously you either don't want to read long posts or you simply don't understand/comprehend what I say.

There was once a series of conferences called HOPL. I think there are 3 books available covering the conference lectures: History of Programming Languages. I suggest to read at least one of them.

We did not talk about "engineered" or breeded (bread?) food.

We talked about chemical free food. And he came with an "dihydrogenmonoxid" pseudo argument.

Yes it does. Even if the term got ninja-ed and misplaced. I guess you talk about C++ where unwinding the stack means that destructores need to be called ;D
Do you know how C++ implements this? With longjmp. A list of setjmp adresses for try/catches and returns is "unwinded".

Lol.

A city with 300000 inhabitants gets bombed. A few miles circle is completely destroyed. A few more miles around it burn down to the ground. All this more or less instantly.

And you believe only 4000 people died? So: god had a hand over them?

Why don't you jsut read the wikipedia article and then do your own research? And what do you mean with: "citation to an actual scientific study"?

There are scientific studies about FACTs? I did not know that. Can you show my any scientific study that Hiroshima was bombed at the 6th of september in 1945? There surely are thousands. Likely contradicting each other and claiming it was not bombed at all, or was bombed at the 5th and not the 6th and more others that show that in a parallel universe the bomb was deflected into subspace and in another one that the bomb did not ignite. So the japs sold it to germany and then it was dropped on a small town in Oregon with 300 inhabitants of which unfortunately 35,000 died (due to overkill battle rules).

ROFL what an idiot can you be? Or did you simple miss to add 3 more zeroes to your number? Then I apologize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

That is actually the definition that they were probably going for. It is fixed and stationary at compile time. It does not move in and out of memory.

No, this is not the case. As this is also true for all other C variables. They are permanent and don't go away ...

As I said in my post a few posts back: static variables or functions in C are invisible to the outside world. In C# or Java that would correspondent to "private".

The problem in C is the linking. You have two files, where one file is referring to a function or variable in the other file:

fileA.c:
      int my_counter = 0; // a variable that is never going away and "permanent", but not static
      static int something;

    int doit() {} // a function

fileB.c
      main() {
            doit(); // call a function in a different compilation unit (in this case fileA.c
      }

      static int my_counter; // this counter is different from the one in fileA.c and as it is static no other C file can refer to it.

Well, C is a little bit more complex as you usually would explicitly "export" a variable that should be refered in other files.

So you might write: "export int myVar;" This indicates to the compiler that "somewhere else" a variable called myVar exists.

Anyway: we use the keyword static in Java and C# only for one reason: C# is modeled after Java, Java is modeled after C++, C++ did not want to invent new keywords (as for quite a while C++ aimed to be a better C and to be able to compile any C code, a new keyword bares the risk to clash with a funny variable or function in some legacy C code) and C had a keyword that seemed appropriated: static.

Your english looks very good to me, so I would asume you are a native english speaker.

So: what is so hard in understanding that if you invent a new language that you obviously don't use the ancient keyword "static" for class variables or class methods but rather use "class_scope" or something similar?

A house is static, a bus does move a variable is either mutable or const/final but "static"? Hu? A variable is static? So if it is, the opposite is then? Volatile?

The best programming language imho was and will be: Pascal.

It is the only language that explains on 3 pages of paper how computers work and what the relevant constructs of a programming language are.

All other languages, and that includes Python, can in my eyes only be effective taught or learned if you already can program. Note the word effective. Sure, everyone learns a programming language in university. And 80% of the people say: wow, I ever thought programming is so complicated. Why do they say that? Because of the mental clash of words that they use in daily communication with the meaning of that word in the programming language.

(Especially if you are french or german and the programming language is english based)

You are a good example for it, as you did not know or understand from my first post/example what "static" means in C. Your assumption what it means was wrong. It is pretty hard to have "no assumptions". Your mind jumps to assumptions and conclusions automatically. Pushing this back and realizing: "oh, I don't know it, I have to look it up!" is pretty hard.

If I say "look at this blatonga!" your mind stops and tells you: "erm, a blatonga? What is that? I have no concept or association to this 'symbol'" so you stop and you ask. If I say: "look the problem is is simple, that there is static but it should not be" your mind does not stop, as "static" is a known word, however did you comprehend the meaning of my sentence? Are you sure you did? Frankly: you only think about this now because I asked you. If I would say a sentence like above you would not consider it a second though if you have understood or comprehended it ... because the words seem so clear.

Programming is an intellectual task where the coder ultimately puts his mind into a machine. The clearer the mind is and the clearer a coder can express himself (and that depends ofc also on the language he uses, natural and programming language) the clearer his code is (or at least has the potential if he wants to write clear code).

On the other hand you see Ph.D.s who are geniuses but can not describe what they are working on and if you see their programming code you run away screaming. (Seen that often enough in real life) Anyway, jumping from "static" to this might look far sketched :D however for me this all about the "mental model" of a human and how he expresses and articulates himself. The more bizarr the target language is the more complicated he will articulate himself.

E.g. I try to talk about class methods. This term is clear for every SmallTalk and Python programmer, and IMHO should be clear for C++ and Java / C# programmers as well. However most C++ programmers will call this a "static member function" which is not clear to a C# or Java developer. A Java or C# developer will call this a "static method", which a C++ programmer might grasp but a SmallTalker or Pythoner only understands if he has that background.

So in the academic world we talk about "class methods". In UML we call it "class operations".

Well, I wrote now basically an article about what is wrong with static. I can write a dozen of those about lots of features/keywords/concepts of modern programming languages. Our limit in computing is not the silicon and Moores law. It is our limit of comprehension and expression.

So as an exercise :D a challenge to you: why do we have the keyword "void" now in languages like Java and C#?

A subroutine/method/function/procedure surely could be written like this:
      doit() {
      }

Why is it not?
           

Crops that are grown without herbicides etc. obviously can not be tainted by them, did you miss this?

So how do you come to the idea that every food is contaminated by them?

Lots of experience is plenty available on this planet.

However a new language should be 'void' of marketing interests and compatibility issues.

Otherwise we remain 'static' in what we already have.

Frankly, if I go to the wikipedia page of Dart and follow the links to other referenced languages I always the same old wine in new bottles. (Sorry, to lazy to dig out the proper english term of this biblic saying :) )

Now the terrorists know it, too!

Pffttt.

longjmp() clears the stack up, or ow exactly do you tink it works. Rofl.

A static method is static allocated?

A static member variable is static allocated? (Perhaps, it makes half sense).

Ofc it is arbitrary. As it does not explain what it is.

In C something static is not "static allocated" ... C++ and Java just captured the keyword and gave it a new meaning.

My point is not, that you don't know what it means. You know it, no problem. I know it as well. We all know it. But if you teach someone a language, especially a programming language, he also knows what static means.

Unfortunately his knowledge about what static means is wrong as it means something completely different (and close to incomprehendable) in the programming language. The clash between programming and natural language is huge.

Well, my point is simple.

New languages should not reuse "static" again, but rather use a new keyword that makes clear for the layman what we are talking about.

Class variables and class methods are not static. In other words everywhere where C++ uses const imho static would make more sense.

And please ... we are talking here about a Gedankenexperiment. No one of us is right or wrong or needs to prove the other side wrong.

I like to play with language, natural or artificial ... thats all.

Exactly.
We need a fresh start in programming languages.

I consider to write a blog, perhaps I allow myself to use this sentence as a headline. Credits granted, definitely.

You coined it to the point.

did you say: look tame?
or did you rather mean: look lame?

I only ask because the small but significant differences between emacs and vi (or vim if that matters) are lame, too!

However vi is easy to tame and I believe emacs is a beast!

Oops, you are right here.

HÃ? Do you think anyone understands this?

So a plant that just grows and never was treated with "*zids" has the smae stuff in it (or on it?) like a plant that was treated with 6 different kinds of "*zids"?

Yeah, likely. Hm, ther more I think about it, the more likely it becomes. I should go to my fridge and trash the BIO vegetables instantly.

And go to my cellar and trash my bio wine.

Oh for fuck sake, and what about my beer that I brew with my BIO grains ...

Let me ask again: bio or organic food is tainted with the same herbizides/fungizides or other *zides as "ordinary" food? How retarded are you?