3 ms·

C: The Immortal Programming Language « Barr Code

14 points by cryo 9y ago

cafard 9y ago
They stab it with their (Guy L.) Steeley knives, but they just can't kill the beast... (Yes, I know this deserves downvotes: knock yourselves out.)
vardump 9y ago
Using C guarantees future employment. Someone needs to keep fixing the firmware until EOL. (Embedded & device driver developer here).
DannyB2 9y ago
Maybe C simply has become a modern replacement for assembly language? (before LLVM) C is/was a target for some other compilers to emit simply because, prior to LLVM, it was a sort of universal assembly language with a rich set of implementations on any conceivable hardware. In the 21st century, is C really being used as a higher level application programming language? I doubt it. That is why so many languages exist at a much higher level of abstraction. Yet C is great close to the hardware, like micro controllers, operating systems, device drivers, codecs, other specialty high performance libraries.
ktpsns 9y ago
Note that the chart shows results of survey questions asked to embedded system programmers. They do not use the latest JavaScript shit. Java did not make it. Probably Rust will not make it too. I don't want to start a rant against C++, but I have seen C++ projects going crazily complicated (note that C++ templating is turing complete and a very different kind of language compared to C). That is, enthusiastic C++ programmers no more write C, they write in an obscure functional meta programming language. In contrast, it seems to me that pure C is sometimes the better choice when one wants to keep it comprehensible and future-proof (one of the reasons why the Linux kernel is written in C and did not make the transition to C++).
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I think that's stretching it. More like, Linus is an old crank and doesn't want to learn new stuff. C++ can be used simply to refactor lots of repetitive APIs into something manageable. No need to go overboard. And no need to resist because 'it can go badly wrong'. Just don't do that. I've had to make changes to the Linux kernel. It was awful. Repetitive code, the same names used for 4 or 5 different things, no design patterns, and on and on.
  - ktpsns 9y ago
    I agree with the statement that C++ can be used to simplify. However, it can also be used to make it more complex. As an example, in the scientific community people rewrite Fortran and C codes to C++. This is good in the first place because one can get maintainable, readable and efficient code with high level templated libraries. However, once you write something wrong, the compiler error output kills you (yes, one should blame the compiler, not the language). As an effect, the next generation can no more maintain the code and either goes back to good-old-Fortran (or replace with "good-old-C" in the context of the Linux kernel). Using fancy C++ idioms (sorry for when I call traits "fancy", but for physicists it is) makes it sometimes (!) worse :-(

14 points by cryo 9y ago

They stab it with their (Guy L.) Steeley knives, but they just can't kill the beast... (Yes, I know this deserves downvotes: knock yourselves out.)

vardump 9y ago

Using C guarantees future employment. Someone needs to keep fixing the firmware until EOL. (Embedded & device driver developer here).

DannyB2 9y ago

Maybe C simply has become a modern replacement for assembly language? (before LLVM) C is/was a target for some other compilers to emit simply because, prior to LLVM, it was a sort of universal assembly language with a rich set of implementations on any conceivable hardware. In the 21st century, is C really being used as a higher level application programming language? I doubt it. That is why so many languages exist at a much higher level of abstraction. Yet C is great close to the hardware, like micro controllers, operating systems, device drivers, codecs, other specialty high performance libraries.

ktpsns 9y ago

Note that the chart shows results of survey questions asked to embedded system programmers. They do not use the latest JavaScript shit. Java did not make it. Probably Rust will not make it too. I don't want to start a rant against C++, but I have seen C++ projects going crazily complicated (note that C++ templating is turing complete and a very different kind of language compared to C). That is, enthusiastic C++ programmers no more write C, they write in an obscure functional meta programming language. In contrast, it seems to me that pure C is sometimes the better choice when one wants to keep it comprehensible and future-proof (one of the reasons why the Linux kernel is written in C and did not make the transition to C++).

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
I think that's stretching it. More like, Linus is an old crank and doesn't want to learn new stuff. C++ can be used simply to refactor lots of repetitive APIs into something manageable. No need to go overboard. And no need to resist because 'it can go badly wrong'. Just don't do that. I've had to make changes to the Linux kernel. It was awful. Repetitive code, the same names used for 4 or 5 different things, no design patterns, and on and on.
- ktpsns 9y ago
  I agree with the statement that C++ can be used to simplify. However, it can also be used to make it more complex. As an example, in the scientific community people rewrite Fortran and C codes to C++. This is good in the first place because one can get maintainable, readable and efficient code with high level templated libraries. However, once you write something wrong, the compiler error output kills you (yes, one should blame the compiler, not the language). As an effect, the next generation can no more maintain the code and either goes back to good-old-Fortran (or replace with "good-old-C" in the context of the Linux kernel). Using fancy C++ idioms (sorry for when I call traits "fancy", but for physicists it is) makes it sometimes (!) worse :-(