5 ms·
1) were C programmers "better"? In sum total, pretty much. 2) C programs, at least the ones we use now, are a product of a lot of use and debugging 3) It didn
by AtlasBarfed 3y ago
1) were C programmers "better"? In sum total, pretty much.
2) C programs, at least the ones we use now, are a product of a lot of use and debugging
3) It didn't take too many debugging sessions as a C programmer to learn to program a bit more carefully.
4) and the more it gets used, the more error codes it encounters, and the more robust the handling gets. I think a dirty secret of software engineering isn't that the most complicated/heavily used code gets the most and most useful comments, it's that it also get the most error handling/detection code, and for the vast majority of non-core loop code: error handling ..isn't.
- wiseowise 3y ago> were C programmers "better"? In sum total, pretty much No. Original programmers that just happened to use C were better, not the other way around.
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y agoI disagree. The early adopters are usually exceptional. When adoption grows the average level decreases. This is a well known phenomenon which is larger than just programmers. It was even on HN recently, as applied to IQs in high schools over time: as more kids reach high school, the average decreases. So yes. C programmers were better.
- wiseowise 3y agoYou’re literally proving my point and then summarizing with different conclusion. They were exceptional because they were exceptional, not because they were C developers.