Comments by "OpenGL4ever" (@OpenGL4ever) on "Anastasi In Tech" channel.

She is comparing Python with C and calling it a successor to C at 10:05. So what do you expect? It's obvious, that she doesn't know a lot about software engineering from a software development point of view. For those who are now wondering what the problem is? These two languages have completely different uses. You don't write an operating system with Python, it's not a programming language for system programming, C is.
2
You can of course use GNU Octave for the same task, but the question is what your employer expects of you. There is a possibility that he will provide you with Matlab, but not GNU Octave. Knowing both is probably the best option.
1
@christopherjoseph651 Define high end programmer. I can program in x86 assembly, but I doubt that everyone is using it in performance-critical code these days. And there are several reasons for this: 1. The field where such optimizations in assembly are actually paid for is very small. 2. x86 CPUs in particular are very complex these days; you have to take a lot into account if you want to manually achieve faster code in x86 assembly than a highly optimized compiler produces. The effort can be disproportionate to the result. 3. You lose platform independence. That's why it makes sense to alternatively have a code branch for the same task that was written in a high-level language. And then at the latest you will realize whether your extra effort was even justified. There are special cases where x86 assembly still makes sense, no question, but the area is very small. So no, I would disagree with you on this statement that every high end programmer will write the critical portions of their code using in-line assembly. Of course, things can look different for other architectures, especially microcontrollers, but I wouldn't call them high-end programmers. For me, these are more like normal forest and meadow programmers who, due to the limited hardware resources available on microcontrollers, then write the code in assembly language, which makes the code a little bit faster and smaller.
1
I started with GW Basic!
1
@Me__Myself__and__I I wouldn't call a firmware on a microcontroller that just causes an LED to blink an operating system. And there used to be games for the PC as PC booters, all of which ran without an operating system. The C-64 boots a basic interpreter when it starts. I wouldn't call it an operating system either.
1
@Me__Myself__and__I No, it's not. It's only interpreting BASIC code. It doesn't manage resources like files, it requires firmware routines to do more. It doesn't have an hardware abstraction layer, like modern OS do. And so on. The Wikipedia says a lot of rubbish, it claims for example that Windows 3.x is not an OS, which is wrong.
1
@Me__Myself__and__I MS-DOS is an operating system, but a PC Booter, a game like you claim, is not. Just because a piece of software runs directly on the hardware without an OS doesn't make it an operating system, as you claim here. MS-DOS has a primitive HAL for storage access. The programs running on top of DOS do not have to worry about the file system and the file system in DOS is exchangeable with other file systems. DOS takes care of that and DOS is also expandable in this regard. DOS also has a primitive API. You like WP, there is an article about the DOS API on WP. DOS just doesn't have a full HAL like a modern operating system would.
1