> It is impossible for a simulink model to accidentally type `i > 0` when they meant `i >= 0`

That's a classic bias: Comparing A and B, show that B doesn't have some A flaws. If they are different systems, of course that's true. But it's also true that A doesn't have some B flaws. That is, what flaws does Autocode have that humans don't?

The fantasy that machines are infallible - another (implicit) argument in this thread - is just ignorance for any professional in technology.

▲

coderenegade 21 hours ago | parent [-]

What's the difference between autogenerated C code and compiling to assembly or machine code? Seems academic to me.

The main flaw of autocode is that a human can't easily read and validate it, so you can't really use it as source code. In my experience, this is one of the biggest flaws of these types of systems. You have to version control the file for whatever proprietary graphical programming software generated the code in the first place, and as much as we like to complain about git, it looks like a miracle by comparison.

▲

mmooss 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> What's the difference between autogenerated C code and compiling to assembly or machine code? Seems academic to me.

It's an interesting question and point, but those are two different things and there is no reason to think you'll get the same results. Why not compile from natural language, if that theory is true?

▲

_flux 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Natural language does not have a specification, while both C and assembly do.

	▲	mmooss 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The C specification is orders of magnitude more complex and is much less defined than assembly. Arguably, the same could be said comparing natural language with C. I admit that's mostly philosphical. But I think saying 'C can autogenerate reliable assembly, therefore a specification can autogenerate reliable C' is also about two different problems.