3 ms·
> as there will probably never be languages without any flaws Yes, but we can try to develop better language. Rust is such a try. And that's good. > Sure, but
by irundebian 9y ago
> as there will probably never be languages without any flaws
Yes, but we can try to develop better language. Rust is such a try. And that's good.
> Sure, but I don't belong to that fraction of programmers who think they write flawless code or develop a cult with old, error prone languages such as C.
The important thing is that we are not discussing about programmers making mistakes, but about a language which is old and which is making mistakes easy. C proofed in sufficient cases that it belongs to the museum.
- stinos 9y agoit belongs to the museum I agree that in C it's way easier to make mistakes than in e.g. Rust, but I don't agree that (or whatever other reason) is proof that it belongs in a museum. Take microPython for instance: it's a relatively young project written in C, it allows running a pretty complete Python 3 implementation on a variety of microprocessors as well as on PC/mac/... Suppose we put C in a museum, what do we use instead to achieve the same functionality?