5 ms·

As someone who currently works with C# - is there much of a point to learning C? I've always found it interesting, but never had a reason to jump into it.

by kzisme 9y ago

Koshkin 9y ago
While C remains the single most important programming languages of all time, its share of popularity is shrinking, giving way to C++, C#, Java, and Swift (from Objective-C). Nevertheless, I don't think anyone should call themselves a (true) programmer unless they know C. C is easy to learn, because it's a small language. If you are not new to programming, pretty much all there is to know is in the second edition of the K&R book.
- kzisme 9y ago
  I've been using C# on a daily basis for ~2 years at this point. I've had that book on my wish list for awhile, but wasn't sure if I would make use of it - I'll likely order it soon.
  - sn9 9y ago
    K&R is a great book and should be read by everyone both for culture and as a model of technical writing. After working through the problems, two books that would be great followups are Hanson's C Interfaces and Implementations and Bryant and O'Hallaron's Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Nevertheless, I don't think anyone should call themselves a (true) programmer unless they know C." You could make an even stronger claim about knowing an assembly language. The point being that understanding how a computing device works is helpful in getting the best out of it. If that wasn't your point, then C is no more special than any other popular programming language. Also, whilst I only know the basics of C, it's pretty clear things have moved on considerably since the days of K&R. It doesn't cover any of the enhancements included in C99 and C11, nor does it cover the tooling and coding conventions (the ones that help avoid problems) that have become commonplace since 1989. For a more up-to-date reference, I've heard good things about 21st Century C: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033677.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033677.do
  - msla 9y ago
    Any modern introduction to C should make heavy use of Valgrind at the very least. In addition to catching the nastiest class of bugs C programs are heir to, it can be used to teach how memory works at a low level.
    - newman8r 9y ago
      can you recommend any books that introduce the concept well?
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    > If that wasn't your point It wasn't; it is perfectly possible and normal to use C as one would any other programming language, i.e. without knowing much about the computer architecture. Even the pointers, often seen as something low-level, aren't really: the rules of their behavior and use are very simple, and they are easy to describe at a high level. C is special in that, as I said, it has been, and remains, a very important programming language in its ubiquity and sheer power.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "C is special in that, as I said, it has been, and remains, a very important programming language in its ubiquity and sheer power." In that case, you could say the same about Java, Python, C#, etc... If being a "true" programmer is just about getting the job done, any of those languages will suffice. C may be a useful tool for certain performance critical code, but that's a very small fraction of what's required in most day-to-day programming activities. I would say the following list describes the key qualities of good code (in the order described, from most to least important, for most cases): Correctness, clarity, conciseness, performance. As for pointers, you can describe them at a high-level but to understand why they're a low-cost abstraction it's helpful to understand how computers work. That's the type of knowledge that C can help expose you to.
- e12e 9y ago
  > C is easy to learn, because it's a small language. I'm no great c or c++ programmer - but I really like Bjarne Stroustrup's "Learning Standard C++ as a New Language" (C/C++ Users Journal. pp 43-54. May 1999): http://www.stroustrup.com/new_learning.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/new_learning.pdf Even if it is somewhat dated now - I think it makes a great case for c++ (or d, maybe rust) over C - and it doesn't even touch on Unicode - simply memory management, error checking and buffered I/O. I agree everyone should know some C - and some assembler (if for nothing other than looking at compiler output) - but I'm not sure I agree that C is "simple". And learning from k&r might not be the best approach today - rather read sources of something like some of the openbsd utilities, redis, spiped...
- pfranz 9y ago
  I kinda disagree. A small language is one thing, but to "learn a language," (to be productive) you need to know the ecosystem, idioms, libraries, etc. A lot of people say design patterns are language smell--deficiencies in the language. For example, the Group of Four's book was for C++ at the time it was written. True or not, my point is that it's a part of being productive in that language and part of "learning" it. K&R and nice and short, but I've heard it argued that it doesn't teach the best (modern) C practices. C was probably the first language I learned, but I wouldn't say I "know" it. I still have no idea which calls are safe or preferred or how to structure a larger program. It depends what you want to get out of it. If you want to learn for its historical value, to learn more about the language that a majority of other languages adopted ideas from, K&R is probably good enough. If you want to grok a bit of random C code, that might be good enough, too, but you'll probably need a bit more. If you want to contribute to the Linux Kernel or similar project, or even put C on your resume, that's definitely not enough.
hzhou321 9y ago
First, what is programming? Programming is basically writing out instructions with names, verbs, if/else's, and loops. The latter three are not much different in all languages, but names! The programs we wrote -- the style, details, and effectiveness -- depend on the understanding of entities behind those objects. For example, the name Michael, if we assume he is intelligent and equipped with common sense, we may choose to instruct him in a high-level or declarative way. But if we assume he is dumb we may have to instruct him in a more detailed and imperative way and often it is the easier and more effective way. The state of programming: All entities are in fact very dumb, but programming languages often disguise it and make you think they are smart (smarter than they really are). If you don't care about efficiency and even how it is actually done, as many frameworks and languages designer wished, the more deceivingly smart the entities appear, the better, so the programmer can program without worry about how it is actually being done with a good conscience. But as soon as the programmer start to care about how it is actually get done, or as soon as they desire some control -- out-of the inflated self-respect that they are smarter than the language and framework, then they need the understanding of their entities in details. With most higher level languages (with C#, the libraries, and framework), the objects are very complex and it is difficult or practically impossible to fully understand (due to the fact that we are only human), so the programmers are often doing programming with an assumed understanding (in reality it is just a religion). It is still programming, but programming with trust and faith. With C (the language, not some libraries or framework) however, the subjects are simple -- 1-byte integer or 8-byte integer, 4 -byte float or 8-byte float, and even names representing functions are simple entities. It is possible to fully understand your entities when programming in C. They are dumb as minions, but you are in 100% control. Only the experience of programming with entities that you truly understand and fully in-control can reward you with the certain zen of programming -- the demigod-like joy of producing and enjoying fruits that you are in control of near 100% of its creation. So, it depends on your objectives in programming. You don't need C or even C# if all you care is a job or an end objective (in fact, you would very much like to skip the programming part if possible). But if you care about programming as an activity of love, then the experience with C -- especially the one with few dependence of third-party libraries -- is uniquely rewarding.
- kzisme 9y ago
mcguire 9y ago
Keep in mind that C and C#, in practice, aren't especially related. C is a low level, close to the machine, minimal systems language, while the latter is a modern, advanced, managed language.
da02 9y ago
What kind of apps have you used since learning C#? Was it difficult finding work with C#?
- kzisme 9y ago
  Do you mean what sort of things have I built thus far using C#? Most have been console based applications with a GUI front end to manage settings. I've worked a little with WCF and a little more with WebAPI/REST and also Windows Services. C# more often than not makes things fairly simple and fun, but repetitive at times.
  - da02 9y ago
    Thanks.
jkarneges 9y ago
C is still pretty special in that it's generally used to write the compilers for all the other languages. Even today, if you were to create a brand new language, you'd likely write the compiler in C (or maybe C++). Also it still remains the most practical language for fundamental system components like an OS kernel, drivers, etc. Most people don't work on compilers or kernels, so I'd say most people don't actually need to learn C. But, unless C is ever unseated from its position, we'll always need some people out there that know it. :) To unseat C, we'd need a language with similar low-level expressive power, minimal overhead, and a compiler written in that new language that can compile itself.
- fasquoika 9y ago
  > Even today, if you were to create a brand new language, you'd likely write the compiler in C (or maybe C++). You might write the bootstrapping compiler in C for portability reasons, but you'd probably write the real compiler in the new language itself. Not to mention that if you don't mind the extra dependency on POSIX platforms you don't even need to write the bootstrapping one in C. For example, the Rust compiler frontend was originally written in OCaml, and is now written in Rust with a fairly complicated bootstrapping process. The backend is still C because it uses LLVM, but it hardly has to be
  - kzisme 9y ago
    If I remember correctly Go's first few compiler implementations were written in C, but later were written in Go (bootstrapped by C).
    - FreeFull 9y ago
      They actually wrote a tool that turned C code into (unidiomatic) Go code, and then later gradually improved the codebase they got from that.

As someone who currently works with C# - is there much of a point to learning C? I've always found it interesting, but never had a reason to jump into it.

by kzisme 9y ago

As someone who currently works with C# - is there much of a point to learning C? I've always found it interesting, but never had a reason to jump into it.

Koshkin 9y ago

While C remains the single most important programming languages of all time, its share of popularity is shrinking, giving way to C++, C#, Java, and Swift (from Objective-C). Nevertheless, I don't think anyone should call themselves a (true) programmer unless they know C. C is easy to learn, because it's a small language. If you are not new to programming, pretty much all there is to know is in the second edition of the K&R book.

kzisme 9y ago
I've been using C# on a daily basis for ~2 years at this point. I've had that book on my wish list for awhile, but wasn't sure if I would make use of it - I'll likely order it soon.
- sn9 9y ago
  K&R is a great book and should be read by everyone both for culture and as a model of technical writing. After working through the problems, two books that would be great followups are Hanson's C Interfaces and Implementations and Bryant and O'Hallaron's Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective.
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Nevertheless, I don't think anyone should call themselves a (true) programmer unless they know C." You could make an even stronger claim about knowing an assembly language. The point being that understanding how a computing device works is helpful in getting the best out of it. If that wasn't your point, then C is no more special than any other popular programming language. Also, whilst I only know the basics of C, it's pretty clear things have moved on considerably since the days of K&R. It doesn't cover any of the enhancements included in C99 and C11, nor does it cover the tooling and coding conventions (the ones that help avoid problems) that have become commonplace since 1989. For a more up-to-date reference, I've heard good things about 21st Century C: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033677.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033677.do
- msla 9y ago
  Any modern introduction to C should make heavy use of Valgrind at the very least. In addition to catching the nastiest class of bugs C programs are heir to, it can be used to teach how memory works at a low level.
  - newman8r 9y ago
    can you recommend any books that introduce the concept well?
- Koshkin 9y ago
  > If that wasn't your point It wasn't; it is perfectly possible and normal to use C as one would any other programming language, i.e. without knowing much about the computer architecture. Even the pointers, often seen as something low-level, aren't really: the rules of their behavior and use are very simple, and they are easy to describe at a high level. C is special in that, as I said, it has been, and remains, a very important programming language in its ubiquity and sheer power.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "C is special in that, as I said, it has been, and remains, a very important programming language in its ubiquity and sheer power." In that case, you could say the same about Java, Python, C#, etc... If being a "true" programmer is just about getting the job done, any of those languages will suffice. C may be a useful tool for certain performance critical code, but that's a very small fraction of what's required in most day-to-day programming activities. I would say the following list describes the key qualities of good code (in the order described, from most to least important, for most cases): Correctness, clarity, conciseness, performance. As for pointers, you can describe them at a high-level but to understand why they're a low-cost abstraction it's helpful to understand how computers work. That's the type of knowledge that C can help expose you to.
e12e 9y ago
> C is easy to learn, because it's a small language. I'm no great c or c++ programmer - but I really like Bjarne Stroustrup's "Learning Standard C++ as a New Language" (C/C++ Users Journal. pp 43-54. May 1999): http://www.stroustrup.com/new_learning.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/new_learning.pdf Even if it is somewhat dated now - I think it makes a great case for c++ (or d, maybe rust) over C - and it doesn't even touch on Unicode - simply memory management, error checking and buffered I/O. I agree everyone should know some C - and some assembler (if for nothing other than looking at compiler output) - but I'm not sure I agree that C is "simple". And learning from k&r might not be the best approach today - rather read sources of something like some of the openbsd utilities, redis, spiped...
pfranz 9y ago
I kinda disagree. A small language is one thing, but to "learn a language," (to be productive) you need to know the ecosystem, idioms, libraries, etc. A lot of people say design patterns are language smell--deficiencies in the language. For example, the Group of Four's book was for C++ at the time it was written. True or not, my point is that it's a part of being productive in that language and part of "learning" it. K&R and nice and short, but I've heard it argued that it doesn't teach the best (modern) C practices. C was probably the first language I learned, but I wouldn't say I "know" it. I still have no idea which calls are safe or preferred or how to structure a larger program. It depends what you want to get out of it. If you want to learn for its historical value, to learn more about the language that a majority of other languages adopted ideas from, K&R is probably good enough. If you want to grok a bit of random C code, that might be good enough, too, but you'll probably need a bit more. If you want to contribute to the Linux Kernel or similar project, or even put C on your resume, that's definitely not enough.

hzhou321 9y ago

First, what is programming? Programming is basically writing out instructions with names, verbs, if/else's, and loops. The latter three are not much different in all languages, but names! The programs we wrote -- the style, details, and effectiveness -- depend on the understanding of entities behind those objects. For example, the name Michael, if we assume he is intelligent and equipped with common sense, we may choose to instruct him in a high-level or declarative way. But if we assume he is dumb we may have to instruct him in a more detailed and imperative way and often it is the easier and more effective way. The state of programming: All entities are in fact very dumb, but programming languages often disguise it and make you think they are smart (smarter than they really are). If you don't care about efficiency and even how it is actually done, as many frameworks and languages designer wished, the more deceivingly smart the entities appear, the better, so the programmer can program without worry about how it is actually being done with a good conscience. But as soon as the programmer start to care about how it is actually get done, or as soon as they desire some control -- out-of the inflated self-respect that they are smarter than the language and framework, then they need the understanding of their entities in details. With most higher level languages (with C#, the libraries, and framework), the objects are very complex and it is difficult or practically impossible to fully understand (due to the fact that we are only human), so the programmers are often doing programming with an assumed understanding (in reality it is just a religion). It is still programming, but programming with trust and faith. With C (the language, not some libraries or framework) however, the subjects are simple -- 1-byte integer or 8-byte integer, 4 -byte float or 8-byte float, and even names representing functions are simple entities. It is possible to fully understand your entities when programming in C. They are dumb as minions, but you are in 100% control. Only the experience of programming with entities that you truly understand and fully in-control can reward you with the certain zen of programming -- the demigod-like joy of producing and enjoying fruits that you are in control of near 100% of its creation. So, it depends on your objectives in programming. You don't need C or even C# if all you care is a job or an end objective (in fact, you would very much like to skip the programming part if possible). But if you care about programming as an activity of love, then the experience with C -- especially the one with few dependence of third-party libraries -- is uniquely rewarding.

kzisme 9y ago

mcguire 9y ago

Keep in mind that C and C#, in practice, aren't especially related. C is a low level, close to the machine, minimal systems language, while the latter is a modern, advanced, managed language.

da02 9y ago

What kind of apps have you used since learning C#? Was it difficult finding work with C#?

kzisme 9y ago
Do you mean what sort of things have I built thus far using C#? Most have been console based applications with a GUI front end to manage settings. I've worked a little with WCF and a little more with WebAPI/REST and also Windows Services. C# more often than not makes things fairly simple and fun, but repetitive at times.
- da02 9y ago
  Thanks.

jkarneges 9y ago

C is still pretty special in that it's generally used to write the compilers for all the other languages. Even today, if you were to create a brand new language, you'd likely write the compiler in C (or maybe C++). Also it still remains the most practical language for fundamental system components like an OS kernel, drivers, etc. Most people don't work on compilers or kernels, so I'd say most people don't actually need to learn C. But, unless C is ever unseated from its position, we'll always need some people out there that know it. :) To unseat C, we'd need a language with similar low-level expressive power, minimal overhead, and a compiler written in that new language that can compile itself.

fasquoika 9y ago
> Even today, if you were to create a brand new language, you'd likely write the compiler in C (or maybe C++). You might write the bootstrapping compiler in C for portability reasons, but you'd probably write the real compiler in the new language itself. Not to mention that if you don't mind the extra dependency on POSIX platforms you don't even need to write the bootstrapping one in C. For example, the Rust compiler frontend was originally written in OCaml, and is now written in Rust with a fairly complicated bootstrapping process. The backend is still C because it uses LLVM, but it hardly has to be
- kzisme 9y ago
  If I remember correctly Go's first few compiler implementations were written in C, but later were written in Go (bootstrapped by C).
  - FreeFull 9y ago
    They actually wrote a tool that turned C code into (unidiomatic) Go code, and then later gradually improved the codebase they got from that.