3 ms·

You are missing my point by focusing on just half of it. I like C and know a few more people that like it too. I'd happily start new projects in C as long as th

by CrLf 10y ago

You are missing my point by focusing on just half of it. I like C and know a few more people that like it too. I'd happily start new projects in C as long as they fit C's (traditional) use cases. I don't think anyone really likes COBOL. And I don't think anyone would start a new project in COBOL given the choice.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Your main point is you like it. The other is it's popular, which is non-technical. Glad you enjoyed using it, though. I'm all for programmers enjoying their work. Everyone's preferences are different on that. "I don't think anyone really likes COBOL." COBOL was like the Visual Basic of mainframes. It looked close enough to pseudo-code or business problems that even lay people could learn to write mediocre code in it. They could Get Stuff Done. Versus assembly, ALGOL, or C, they'd prefer it since they can grok it. Truth is that those people probably don't need to be coding business-critical apps but that plus mainframes making compilers for it gave COBOL an adoption advantage. Much like relationship between cheap hardware, spread of UNIX, and C compiler availability. Personally, I can't stand to look at COBOL. I tried to do my part ridding us of it by forwarding things like Semantic Designs Inc to COBOL shops where possible. Very entrenched, though, due to inertia of tons of software written in about a billion lines or so of it in shops where it's what most people know. Sound familiar?
- CrLf 10y ago
  Both C and COBOL are entrenched and (for very different reasons given their areas of applicability) are very difficult to displace. I don't disagree on this, it's an obvious fact. But COBOL alternatives won. Where COBOL used to rule, Java rules now and .NET languages follow closely. People want to throw COBOL away but can't. C alternatives just can't get past their niches. Even when people don't have to use C, they choose C. It's more than clear to me that this happens because people like C and actively work to keep it entrenched. And liking C doesn't mean being unaware of its problems. But it means people want those problems fixed while keeping the core of what they like. I believe C alternatives fail because they go too far. They fix its shortcomings but also go for a different aesthetic. So yes, my point is largely non-technical. However, our industry is full of examples of things that "won" for largely non-technical reasons.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Fair points. I disagree that all the C alternatives went too far. Even C compilers that just added bounds checks didnt get adoption. The Plan 9 C, with minimal mods, didn't get adoption. C fans won't take fixes in the core language no matter how similar to C. They will and did accept extensions thqt increase its power on occasion.

by CrLf 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Your main point is you like it. The other is it's popular, which is non-technical. Glad you enjoyed using it, though. I'm all for programmers enjoying their work. Everyone's preferences are different on that. "I don't think anyone really likes COBOL." COBOL was like the Visual Basic of mainframes. It looked close enough to pseudo-code or business problems that even lay people could learn to write mediocre code in it. They could Get Stuff Done. Versus assembly, ALGOL, or C, they'd prefer it since they can grok it. Truth is that those people probably don't need to be coding business-critical apps but that plus mainframes making compilers for it gave COBOL an adoption advantage. Much like relationship between cheap hardware, spread of UNIX, and C compiler availability. Personally, I can't stand to look at COBOL. I tried to do my part ridding us of it by forwarding things like Semantic Designs Inc to COBOL shops where possible. Very entrenched, though, due to inertia of tons of software written in about a billion lines or so of it in shops where it's what most people know. Sound familiar?

CrLf 10y ago
Both C and COBOL are entrenched and (for very different reasons given their areas of applicability) are very difficult to displace. I don't disagree on this, it's an obvious fact. But COBOL alternatives won. Where COBOL used to rule, Java rules now and .NET languages follow closely. People want to throw COBOL away but can't. C alternatives just can't get past their niches. Even when people don't have to use C, they choose C. It's more than clear to me that this happens because people like C and actively work to keep it entrenched. And liking C doesn't mean being unaware of its problems. But it means people want those problems fixed while keeping the core of what they like. I believe C alternatives fail because they go too far. They fix its shortcomings but also go for a different aesthetic. So yes, my point is largely non-technical. However, our industry is full of examples of things that "won" for largely non-technical reasons.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Fair points. I disagree that all the C alternatives went too far. Even C compilers that just added bounds checks didnt get adoption. The Plan 9 C, with minimal mods, didn't get adoption. C fans won't take fixes in the core language no matter how similar to C. They will and did accept extensions thqt increase its power on occasion.