3 ms·

C programmers claim some things that are simply not true: 1) simplicity - C is not a simple language, it is a language lacking advanced features which does not

by dmz73 4y ago

C programmers claim some things that are simply not true: 1) simplicity - C is not a simple language, it is a language lacking advanced features which does not make it simple to use but it might be easier to create incomplete non-performant C compiler than compiler for better languages 2) performance - C naive/straight forward/clear implementations are not the most performant and most of the C programs are not highly optimised for performance, C compilers have had so much optimisation work done on them that they can actually generate decently performant code but if better languages received same level of effort as what C had they would be able to achieve better performance than C with smaller and safer code 3) clarity - C is not clear to read once structs and pointers are used and specially once it is optimised for performance...and then there is the preprocessor...which is a whole different language that is required to make any non-hello-world program even possible If I have to provide examples for any of the above you are either not a C programmer or you are an "advanced" C programmer that doesn't have to deal with large code bases and instead deals with small pieces and someone else takes care of the rest. I mean, just try to figure out what long int is on Linux without compiling a program and tell me that C is simple and clear language...and if you are still clinging on that lie then tell me what a struct looks like in memory so I can interface to it from another language...or even another C compiler...because C is simple and clear, right?

tpoacher 4y ago
Not the OP, but you are conflating two very different ideas under a singular definition. C is "simple" in the same way DNA is "simple". There is a small set of very straightforward rules, but that set provides immense flexibility. But it in no way means that any resulting object will not be complicated. Perhaps a better word than "simple" would be "non-complex", making the distinction between "complex" vs "complicated" systems. By contrast, the features you refer to would increase the "complexness" of the language (I won't even dare use the grammatically correct word "complexity" here, lest we deviate into yet another trap of conflating definitions). Which, I would agree with OP is, for better or worse, probably far outside C's goals as a language.

by dmz73 4y ago

tpoacher 4y ago

Not the OP, but you are conflating two very different ideas under a singular definition. C is "simple" in the same way DNA is "simple". There is a small set of very straightforward rules, but that set provides immense flexibility. But it in no way means that any resulting object will not be complicated. Perhaps a better word than "simple" would be "non-complex", making the distinction between "complex" vs "complicated" systems. By contrast, the features you refer to would increase the "complexness" of the language (I won't even dare use the grammatically correct word "complexity" here, lest we deviate into yet another trap of conflating definitions). Which, I would agree with OP is, for better or worse, probably far outside C's goals as a language.