4 ms·
Increasing memory capacity is not a sound argument that most people no longer need to write C. Most people don't write C because it's easier to abstract away th
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Increasing memory capacity is not a sound argument that most people no longer need to write C. Most people don't write C because it's easier to abstract away the knobs C provides for faster productivity, not because we have so much hardware we don't need to care. But it sounds like you're saying most people don't need to write in C because they don't need to be efficient, which is silly.
I despise running non-native desktop applications on a workstation with 128GB RAM because the developers often think it doesn't matter how much memory they use if there's a lot of it. That's frustrating and lazy, and it means I'm paying for their time savings with my hardware resources. "Unused memory is wasted memory!" they say, except I would happily use as much memory as possible, but the nth Electron app prevents me from running something else.
C and its derivatives have disappeared from web applications (particularly the frontend), but it's painful to forgo them for desktop and systems applications.
- sgt101 8y ago>That's frustrating and lazy I think it's frustrating (for you) and cheap. For them writing in Python and not C is probably (see my previous comment for my acknowledgement of the lameness of "probably") significantly cheaper - possibly several orders of magnitude cheaper. For you 128GB RAM is pricy, but nothing like the cost of software written "the old way". You are paying for their time savings with your hardware, the alternative is to pay for their time which would be way more expensive. You definitely have a point wrt. Systems apps; C++ is needed if you want to go close to the metal. I think that Julia is pushing it out of a lot of scientific apps though.
- throwawaymath 8y agoI'm happy to pay for productivity. I'm not happy to pay for inefficiency.