4 ms·
Funny that you would bring up survivor bias. I tend to think the oposit. If C is so bad, why does only C programs survive? Is issues are more visible, because i
by quelsolaar 3y ago
Funny that you would bring up survivor bias. I tend to think the oposit. If C is so bad, why does only C programs survive? Is issues are more visible, because it is so success full, and so much of the world uses C.
One thing i have considered is the importance of the "fun factor" a language. C is seen as a "Fun" language to program by many C programmers, where as Rust is seen more as the "correct" and "responsible" language to use by Rust users. Are Rust developers going to find enough joy in maintaining large open source projects for decades? Time will tell.
- jcranmer 3y ago> If C is so bad, why does only C programs survive? The short answer is because you're ignoring all the programs that survive that aren't C. The vast majority of software I use on a day-to-day basis is in fact not written in C, but in C++--and as a software developer, that includes things like my compiler (gcc/g++), debugger (gdb), build system (cmake, ninja). I would guess that the oldest libraries still in common use are written in Fortran, not C--I've definitely seen Fortran code with comments that predate C in the first place.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI didn’t make a claim about C being “so bad”, because it really isn’t “so bad”. My only claim is with respect to maintenance; namely that C in and of itself is not a language that enforces maintenance and good practices out of the box. The chain of causality is the opposite. Good projects survive because of good practices, not because of C, and they’d have survived in any other language; just like all other software that has survived. That’s the only claim that I am making. That, and that compiler enforced soundness makes software more enjoyable to build.