3 ms·

I plan to be writing C for the next decades even for new projects, because I think it is a great language, and I appreciate its simplicity, fast compilation tim

by uecker 11mo ago

I plan to be writing C for the next decades even for new projects, because I think it is a great language, and I appreciate its simplicity, fast compilation times, stability, and portability. I am happy if people are excited about Rust, but I do not like it too much myself. Although I acknowledge that it contains good ideas, it also has many aspects I find problematic and which why I do not think we should all switch to it as a replacement for C.

torben-friis 11mo ago
>it also has many aspects I find problematic Could you share those? Not trying to argue, just curious on the perspective of a C veteran, as someone who’s just starting with lower level languages.
- uecker 11mo ago
  Mostly the advantages a listed for C: stability, portability, simplicity, fast compilation times could all in reverse also be considered disadvantages of Rust. I am also not a fan of monomorphization, not of static linking, and not of having many dependencies out of a large uncurated pile of many projects. I also think Rust is not pragmatic enough. Overall though, my main issue is complexity of the language which I think goes in the wrong direction - this may be ok if the alternative is C++, but if you prefer C to C++ then Rust is equally unappealing. At the same time I think the advantages of Rust are exaggerated. I still agree memory safety is important, I just think Rust is not an ideal approach.
- ahartmetz 11mo ago
  C strings (it's almost an exaggeration to say that C has strings) and "just never make any mistakes bro" based memory management come to mind.
  - uecker 11mo ago
    We were talking about Rust issues. But yes, C should have a proper string type. But as long as it does not have a better standardized string type, it is possible to define your own (or use a library).
    - ahartmetz 11mo ago
      Absolutely. Even when I preferred C over C++ (a long time ago), it was "but with a string library".
  - drnick1 11mo ago
    With LLMs becoming so good at coding, "just never make any mistake" is also becoming easier. I usually write my own code because I don't like the coding style of LLMs, but on more than one occasion now they have proven very useful as code reviewers and bug hunters.
mustache_kimono 11mo ago
> I plan to be writing C for the next decades This is fantastic, if you're still excited about C. However, the question I am asking also has to do with the social relational aspects of programming. Here, significantly, when we are talking about the lives of programming languages/decades, I think we should ask whether other people, and, importantly, industry, will be equally jazzed about yours and others C code, in the future. Are people still going to be happy to deal with all of C's problems when, perhaps, alternatives exist, and if, say, memory safety becomes cheaper, etc.?

by uecker 11mo ago

torben-friis 11mo ago

>it also has many aspects I find problematic Could you share those? Not trying to argue, just curious on the perspective of a C veteran, as someone who’s just starting with lower level languages.

uecker 11mo ago
Mostly the advantages a listed for C: stability, portability, simplicity, fast compilation times could all in reverse also be considered disadvantages of Rust. I am also not a fan of monomorphization, not of static linking, and not of having many dependencies out of a large uncurated pile of many projects. I also think Rust is not pragmatic enough. Overall though, my main issue is complexity of the language which I think goes in the wrong direction - this may be ok if the alternative is C++, but if you prefer C to C++ then Rust is equally unappealing. At the same time I think the advantages of Rust are exaggerated. I still agree memory safety is important, I just think Rust is not an ideal approach.
ahartmetz 11mo ago
C strings (it's almost an exaggeration to say that C has strings) and "just never make any mistakes bro" based memory management come to mind.
- uecker 11mo ago
  We were talking about Rust issues. But yes, C should have a proper string type. But as long as it does not have a better standardized string type, it is possible to define your own (or use a library).
  - ahartmetz 11mo ago
    Absolutely. Even when I preferred C over C++ (a long time ago), it was "but with a string library".
- drnick1 11mo ago
  With LLMs becoming so good at coding, "just never make any mistake" is also becoming easier. I usually write my own code because I don't like the coding style of LLMs, but on more than one occasion now they have proven very useful as code reviewers and bug hunters.

mustache_kimono 11mo ago

> I plan to be writing C for the next decades This is fantastic, if you're still excited about C. However, the question I am asking also has to do with the social relational aspects of programming. Here, significantly, when we are talking about the lives of programming languages/decades, I think we should ask whether other people, and, importantly, industry, will be equally jazzed about yours and others C code, in the future. Are people still going to be happy to deal with all of C's problems when, perhaps, alternatives exist, and if, say, memory safety becomes cheaper, etc.?