3 ms·
WRONG! Plain and simple C is, by far, one of the current _LESS WORSE_ performant alternatives which can be used, actually, from low level to large applications
by sylware 10mo ago
WRONG!
Plain and simple C is, by far, one of the current _LESS WORSE_ performant alternatives which can be used, actually, from low level to large applications.
C syntax is already waaaaay to rich and complex (and ISO is a bit too much pushing feature creep over 5/10 years cycles).
- alexpadula 10mo agoInteresting! Let’s start this debate! I love C, when I wrote my first programs in it as a teenager, I loved the simplicity, I love procedural code. Large languages like C++ and or Rust are just too much for ME. Too much package. I like writing code in a simple way, if I can do that with a small amount of tools, I will. You can learn C and be efficient in it within a couple weeks. C systems are just built better, faster, more stable, portable, and more! This is my 2 cents.
- sylware 9mo agoIt is a complex matter. But it narrows down to one thing: the number of real-life alternative compilers, which is in direct relation to this benchmark: can a small team of average devs, or an individual average dev, develop with reasonable effort and time and near 0 technical dependence, a real-life alternative of a compiler. It is a protection of developer/vendor lock-in, in the SDK realm. Most honnest software developers know the answer: for any computer language with an ultra-complex syntax(c++,etc) or which requires an intrusive and tricky runtime (java,etc), the answer is obvsiously "nope". But we all know, for plain and simple C, the answer is "yes" (have a look at cproc and QBE, or scc, tinycc, etc). The new C I am talking about should reduce the effort related to such compiler developement and "fix" all C implicit stuff hiding too much things, kind of error prone. There is a huge pitfall though: linux is not coded in plain and simple C, but in GCC C... which is VERY different, a GCC C alternative, is clancg/llvm, those are not to be called reasonable in any capacity. If linux code would care about having clean assembly source files on top of plain and simple C code, unfortunately it would be slower. BUT, you guess what, for the ability to compile linux with an _REAL ALTERNATIVE_ C compiler (and a small assembler), I will happily accept to have a "slower" kernel.
- kitd 10mo agoThat's the first time I've heard the C syntax being called "too rich". It's the epitome of succinctness IMHO (too a fault, even, or maybe I'm just old). Are you confusing it with C++? If so, you have a point.
- alexpadula 10mo agoHuh. I don’t think I miswrote yes I’m talking about a larger language like c++.
- huhtenberg 10mo agoForgot to switch the account?
- pjerem 10mo agohahaha
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- alexpadula 10mo agoHuh, what switch account I have one account.
- kibwen 10mo agoC's syntax is pretty lacking by modern standards, requiring gross things like The Lexer Hack to resolve ambiguities that other languages just don't suffer from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexer_hack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexer_hack . To say nothing of the madness that is C's type declaration syntax, necessitating tools like https://cdecl.org/ https://cdecl.org/ and "the spiral rule" for reading type declarations (which doesn't actually produce the correct result anyway).
- bluecalm 10mo agoSo "modern standard" is to make it easier for compiler writers instead of programmer to read the code? Thanks god C designers had their priorities elsewhere. >>"the spiral rule" Not a problem in 99.99% of cases where it's just: type name = something; with maybe * and [] somewhere.