3 ms·

The article argued that C was effective in practice, not that it was better than X in some other sense. Would you prefer to write production code in FORTRAN, AL

by _yosefk 14y ago

The article argued that C was effective in practice, not that it was better than X in some other sense. Would you prefer to write production code in FORTRAN, ALGOL 60 and 68, Turbo Pascal, or Smalltalk to writing it in C today?

madhadron 14y ago
Yes. Though I tend to use PLT Racket these days when the choice of language is not constrained by other factors.
- _yosefk 14y ago
  Seriously? Actual production code in ALGOL in 2013? If I ever had to deal with that code, I think I'd feel about like you would have if I wrote this comment in Aramaic because I prefer it to English on numerous grounds. I'd very much prefer the extremely unpopular Racket which is at least alive to some degree. I think the author's criteria for "effectiveness" are very much different from yours, hence the different conclusions.
  - qznc 14y ago
    You might enjoy this link ;) http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
    - _yosefk 14y ago
      I've read this comparison between Go and ALGOL-68, and I did enjoy it. Here are quotes from it that explain the difference between "good" and "effective" - exactly the point that I was making here (the article we're discussing claiming that C is effective, not that it is good in whatever sense): "So why am I comparing Go with a language 41 years older? Because Go is not a good language." But... "I'm not suggesting that everyone drop Go and switch to Algol-68. There's a big difference between a good programming language and an effective programming language. Just look at Java. Go has a modern compiler, proper tools, libraries, a development community, and people wanting to use it. Algol-68 has none of these. I could use Go to get proper work done; I probably couldn't in Algol-68. Go is effective in a way that Algol-68 isn't." Note that the author of a parent comment actually claimed to prefer ALGOL-68 to C for writing production code today, in practice.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by _yosefk 14y ago

madhadron 14y ago

Yes. Though I tend to use PLT Racket these days when the choice of language is not constrained by other factors.

_yosefk 14y ago
Seriously? Actual production code in ALGOL in 2013? If I ever had to deal with that code, I think I'd feel about like you would have if I wrote this comment in Aramaic because I prefer it to English on numerous grounds. I'd very much prefer the extremely unpopular Racket which is at least alive to some degree. I think the author's criteria for "effectiveness" are very much different from yours, hence the different conclusions.
- qznc 14y ago
  You might enjoy this link ;) http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
  - _yosefk 14y ago
    I've read this comparison between Go and ALGOL-68, and I did enjoy it. Here are quotes from it that explain the difference between "good" and "effective" - exactly the point that I was making here (the article we're discussing claiming that C is effective, not that it is good in whatever sense): "So why am I comparing Go with a language 41 years older? Because Go is not a good language." But... "I'm not suggesting that everyone drop Go and switch to Algol-68. There's a big difference between a good programming language and an effective programming language. Just look at Java. Go has a modern compiler, proper tools, libraries, a development community, and people wanting to use it. Algol-68 has none of these. I could use Go to get proper work done; I probably couldn't in Algol-68. Go is effective in a way that Algol-68 isn't." Note that the author of a parent comment actually claimed to prefer ALGOL-68 to C for writing production code today, in practice.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]