3 ms·
You have to try it. You can write anything you want in C. Or assembler. It's hardly going to be very productive but... productivity is greater than zero, and th
by direwolf20 9mo ago
You have to try it. You can write anything you want in C. Or assembler. It's hardly going to be very productive but... productivity is greater than zero, and the more you try the better you get. Rollercoaster Tycoon was written by hand in assembly, as were all NES and SNES games including ones like Earthbound and A Link to the Past — and SNES assembly isn't nearly as nice as x64.
- uecker 9mo agoAh, the C++ guy who think you need all the features of C++ to be efficient... Many people of people are super productive in C. There is a cost, but this is usually just some initial overhead to identify / write some libraries. In a larger project this initial overhead is irrelevant.
- direwolf20 9mo agoIf someone is using a C++ feature it's because they think the feature is better than not using it. std::string lets you treat strings as easily as ints — subject to a run–time cost. You can make libraries that make strings easier to use in C, but you can't make one that makes them as easy as ints.
- uecker 9mo agoBut it does not have to be "as easy as int" to be able to be productive in C. Almost as easy is sufficient.
- direwolf20 9mo agoIt's not almost.
- uecker 9mo agoI am very happy with my string type in C.