3 ms·

C is the best language we have for this sort of stuff. Nobody has been able to show otherwise.

by denim_chicken 12y ago

mercurial 12y ago
A rich history of segfaults and security issues is not proof enough? Not to mention string handling in C is just awful.
- denim_chicken 12y ago
  > A rich history of segfaults and security issues is not proof enough? The most popular language in the world -- the language that's being used to write the largest, most complex software -- will surely have a rich history of bugs and security holes. That will be the case whether or not said language is C.
pjmlp 12y ago
C got its place in the IT world thanks to UNIX's adoption. It is nothing more than a portable macro assembler with all advantages and more importantly the disadvantages that it entails.
- denim_chicken 12y ago
  > C got its place in the IT world thanks to UNIX's adoption. I disagree with your implicit claim that C's position as the most popular systems programming language is not due the language's intrinsic qualities. Luck was a factor but not the only one. It cannot be the only one. The language is just good -- or at least good enough. > It is nothing more than a portable macro assembler with all advantages and more importantly the disadvantages that it entails. Stop the hyperbole. The language is quite a bit more than that. For one, it's structured.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > I disagree with your implicit claim that C's position as the most popular systems programming language is not due the language's intrinsic qualities. I am old enough to remember when knowing C was only required for anyone lucky enough to work in one of those shiny UNIX workstations. The language had barely any use outside of the UNIX workstation world and those compilers supported mostly dialects, not the full language. Only after business started to get UNIX deployed in bigger scale, C knowledge started to matter on the CV. > Stop the hyperbole. It is not an hyperbole. Mesa, Cedar, Algol variants, Pascal variants and Modula-2 offered much higher features while allowing for systems programming. > The language is quite a bit more than that. For one, it's structured. So what that C is structured. Any PC and Amiga macro assembler had powerful macro languages that allow to write structured assembly code. The end result is barely any different than using K&R C or C89, except that C wins on the portability side. EDIT: some extra clarification and formatting
justincormack 12y ago
"this sort of stuff" refers to writing userland programs doing ipc etc, not writing kernels, if you read the article.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

C is the best language we have for this sort of stuff. Nobody has been able to show otherwise.

mercurial 12y ago

A rich history of segfaults and security issues is not proof enough? Not to mention string handling in C is just awful.

denim_chicken 12y ago
> A rich history of segfaults and security issues is not proof enough? The most popular language in the world -- the language that's being used to write the largest, most complex software -- will surely have a rich history of bugs and security holes. That will be the case whether or not said language is C.

pjmlp 12y ago

C got its place in the IT world thanks to UNIX's adoption. It is nothing more than a portable macro assembler with all advantages and more importantly the disadvantages that it entails.

denim_chicken 12y ago
> C got its place in the IT world thanks to UNIX's adoption. I disagree with your implicit claim that C's position as the most popular systems programming language is not due the language's intrinsic qualities. Luck was a factor but not the only one. It cannot be the only one. The language is just good -- or at least good enough. > It is nothing more than a portable macro assembler with all advantages and more importantly the disadvantages that it entails. Stop the hyperbole. The language is quite a bit more than that. For one, it's structured.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > I disagree with your implicit claim that C's position as the most popular systems programming language is not due the language's intrinsic qualities. I am old enough to remember when knowing C was only required for anyone lucky enough to work in one of those shiny UNIX workstations. The language had barely any use outside of the UNIX workstation world and those compilers supported mostly dialects, not the full language. Only after business started to get UNIX deployed in bigger scale, C knowledge started to matter on the CV. > Stop the hyperbole. It is not an hyperbole. Mesa, Cedar, Algol variants, Pascal variants and Modula-2 offered much higher features while allowing for systems programming. > The language is quite a bit more than that. For one, it's structured. So what that C is structured. Any PC and Amiga macro assembler had powerful macro languages that allow to write structured assembly code. The end result is barely any different than using K&R C or C89, except that C wins on the portability side. EDIT: some extra clarification and formatting

justincormack 12y ago

"this sort of stuff" refers to writing userland programs doing ipc etc, not writing kernels, if you read the article.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]