:laugh:

:laugh: The above statement with "==", not the original poster's "=", makes me look all over for your lol emoji.

I gave up and switched my family's computers to Linux Mint. Win 10 (like Win 7) was tolerable. Win 11 is a rolling train wreck. Win 12 won't save it.

"Superfast for solving problems" -- superfast for the solver to formulate. Sorry if that it sounds like, "superfast execution time". Building systems in APL for Rank Xerox, I sometimes completed and ran a solution in the course of a short conversation; so we could get on with the conclusion from its result. Occasionally (rarely) was its speed of execution an issue.

APL was my first language; in high school, then in university co-op work. Yes, it's dense, and uses symbols you don't see on a regular kbd. But it really changes how you think, for the good. Functional programming (!) Expressions on data collections, rather than rat-holing on iterators. It was great for analytics of the first (StatsCan) time-series database. After APL, I worked in C, ZOPL, PL/I, Algol, POP2, VB, perl, C++ and more Every one added new bits for understanding the next one down the line; some of them on what to avoid (I'm looking at *you*, C++20). But APL was the strongest and cleanest. Now JPMorgan uses it (well K), because it is superfast for solving complex problems, and surprisingly straightforward. Everyone has fun with the primes and GameOfLife oneliners :0) They don't get to see the full applications. Sigh. My2¢

I use C heavily, because it's easier to write cross-platform, cross-compiler code. In particular, the ABI doesn't change between different (minor!) versions of the compiler. For performance, C tends to be *simpler* code for sharp new algorithms. That's particularly true for data-oriented designs and flow-based programming. Also for libraries that other (C++) systems depend on. There are C conventions that make "subclassing" easier. FWIW C99 made that simpler. Opinion: I'm tired of C++ trying to fix last version's problems with yet another complicated construct, (auto_ptr? smart_ptr? unique_ptr? ...) requiring code restructuring in ways that other teams may have problems grokking. C++ seems to prefer hiding things, or at least slapping another coat of paint on them. Like getting from point A to point B via a Hilbert curve.

I knew a company whose security product was designed to survive exactly that, by storing info in the interpartition gaps. BIOS mods (by the BIOS mfr) brought that info back out again.

I used CUDA, after looking at OpenCL. Opinion: OpenCL was what AMD got IBM,HP et al to impose on NVidia, so that "the same code" could run on AMD's (ATI's) video chips too. Having written asm to do the latter, it's ridiculous; you need to use different *algorithms* when the underlying chipset is that much less powerful. CUDA was really straightforward; high-level but targeting a GPU built for GPGPU. That being said, have not used it in 10 years.

Same here (Linux Mint). S-o-o-o straightforward. Windows 10 is MSFT's Project Hailstorm back with a vengeance. Where I live, freegeek.org refurbishes donated computers, and installs Linux. They make them affordable to a lot of people; notebooks for $100. And not-Win10 means good speed on a four-year-old PC.

I've heard the "write-only" complaint about Perl and APL, too ... I've seen horrible Perl; but also have seen huge Perl apps that were a cakewalk to understand. APL worked very well at giving you the whole algorithm in a concise picture. Ask Morgan-Stanley how "K works, for people who are under serious coding pressure. I'd say it's a matter of developer community and praxis, without which every language can be a bomb. Language (syntax) requirements never prevent all the bad things you *can* do. Check out Linus Torvalds' comments on why not C++, referenced tangentially here (nevermind the flamebait) [medium.com/codeiq/object-oriented-programming...](https://medium.com/codeiq/object-oriented-programming-the-trillion-dollar-disaster-️-92a4b666c7c7\])

Yes, the HP/3000 was a stack machine; instruction set made one think of Forth.

Thinking of HP: remember SPL/3000? The *system* program language for the HP/3000 -- I never saw any assembler And it was ... Algol ! :-) Clean, powerful. Wikipedia says it survived the transition from the 3000 to PA-RISC.

Or use a good one, already invented. POP-2 - Wikipedia[^] With lambdas, managed mem, closures (full and partial), user-defined operators, user-defined setter functions, functions with multiple results, incremental compiler ... And with alternative ltr syntaxes: `f(a,b) ->x ->y` or `a; b.f() ->x ->y`

I too have a BMath(CompSci) from the late 70's, and I disagree: what I learned then seems to be reinvented (slightly worse) about every 15-20 years thereafter. I got: a solid exposure to algorithms and how to find/make more; widely different programming tools (APL, Prolog, Pop2, C, ...); interface design aimed at function, consistency and an ability for the USER to automate --- rather than animations, complex menus, endless repetitive mouse-clicks, and making this year's super PC's too slow for next year's software, by design. I *really* value having had courses from people who were bona fide researchers. I agree, American students are being exploited through impossible tuition, and declining instruction --- contract lecturers whose only job is to lecture and grade. But it wasn't like that, not long ago; and doesn't have to be.