I tried growing a beard

...but I ended up taking my pants off too much.

Why do people use C when there's C++ anyway? C is so... unorganised.

>>40
grammar please!

>>40
Isn't that just a matter of changing the compiler though? It's still just machine code in the end.

>>35
It's easier to analyze, and easier to prove.

Of course, that's not saying much (I, it's C for crying out loud), but there's a reason why reference crypto algorithms are written in C, not C++. It's also why things like splint can exist.

OTOH, not many people need that degree of clarity. What they need is abstraction, which C isn't all that hot at.

>>23
Segfaults qualify as undefined behaviour. Wanker.

>>44
And why is that, hmm?

>>44

You are a retard.

I don't think we actually came to a reasonable conclusion in this thread. It must be discussed further.

>>47
C fails, C++ fails even harder. Thread over!

penis :D

>nested templates

WHAT.

FUCK.

C is better than C++ because it's SIMPLE.

Analogous arguments that may be more or less true than the above statement:
Python is better than Perl because it's SIMPLER.
Scheme is better than Lisp because it's SIMPLER.
Programs with fewer lines of code than larger programs that do the same thing have less security holes because they're SIMPLER.

You can read the C specification in an hour and understand everything about the language. Sure, it doesn't support every paradigm of programming out there (neither does C++!), but the result is that the idioms are quickly recognizable by other programmers.

C is much easier for static code analysis tools like lint to work with.

More people know C than C++.

C++ has plenty of nice ideas shoehorned onto C (the best of which were added back to C to make C99), but I'll stick with the C's workhorse rather than C++'s sprawling "elegant" object/template/rtti/abstract container classes (all that and you still don't get closures! oops!)

Programs with fewer lines of code than larger programs that do the same thing have less security holes because they're SIMPLER.
IF THEY DO THE SAME THING THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME SECURITY HOLES YOU IDIOT

>>52 has WMF and ANI exploits in his firefox on linux

Q: Why C?
A: Embedded programming.

>>53
Firefox doesn't do ANI and WMF.
THUS THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING

C is older than you are, bitch, and it'll still be around when you are long dead.

This resurrected thread is funny.

There were a number of lucid, well-thought out posts that I agreed with. Then I realised they're posts I made. Whoops.

embedded systems are stupid and shouldn't be the reason for anything besides suicides.

>>13

More like people high on crack need high level language because they can't think straight enough to use C, right?

Who are you going to believe >>51 OR AN IDIOT WHO OVERLOADS BITWISE OPERATORS(Stroustrup) ?

>>58
Kill yourself, lol.

I think Objective-C is a better OO language then C++ except you are forced to use that retarded NObject library.

Let's have some facts here

1) C and C++ can't do everything; However they can do anything any other language (except asm) can do.
2) C offers very little abstraction, C++ a bit more
3) C++ is more complicated than C.
4) Takes years to learn C. Twice the time to learn C++.
5) Using higher level languages that offer more abstraction allows people to concentrate to real problems rather than trivial ones that have been solved so many times before
6) Learning C or C++ and solving trivial problems for the sake of practice & knowledge is fine; else you're the cancer killing programming.
7) C++ is retarded

>>63
Oh, and 8) i forgot to add
8) C is not faster than C++. There's no speed in languages, only in algorithms and actual code. And assembly. In assembly it's documented how many cpu cycles each mnemonic takes, however in C or C++ or any other language they don't tell you that + is 'faste'r than *.

>>63
1. Your definition of "do anything" is wrong.
2. Well yeah.
3. You're getting good.
4. Meh, perhaps.
5. Sure does.
6. I like you.
7. ♥

>>64
>There's no speed in languages, only in algorithms and actual code.

C, Java... same shit.

>>63
>>64
>>65
Stop trying to find excuses for using toy languages like LISP, just because you're too retarded to work with languages that are closer to the machine.

Don't get me wrong. Guys like you are needed. There will always be people who code in assembler and others who can only do PHP. Just be honest about it and stop lying to yourself.

>>67
You're a troll, i'm sure i know every instruction of the assemblers you've EVER HEARD OF.
SPARC, MIPS, 8086, Z80, PDP11, WHATEVER. BRING IT BITCH

Lisp offers great abstraction, and YOU'RE A MORON BECAUSE C OR C++ ARE NOT CLOSE TO THE MACHINE.
INFACT, THEY HAVE *NO RELATIONSHIP* WITH THE MACHINE.
YOU FUCKING NOOB.

>>67
If I want to be close to my machine, I'll unzip and code some assembler. Maybe C. But Sepples? That's for faggots who want to get high level but have an irrational fetish for doing what the computer should do, and who aren't bright enough to understand a real high-level language.

>>67
OMG closer to the machine! Hell yeah! Keep wasting your time, faggot ricer.

>>69
Truth

>>68
>>69
>>70
LOL angry LISPfags.

>>71
No. We take the sane approach by getting stuff that works well ASAP then continually refining it to make it better.

>>72
Yes LISPfag, you can't code and need a language that dumbs it down to MBA level. What else is new?

>>69
and who aren't bright enough to understand a real high-level language.
The higher the level, the less skill is needed. Also limits what can be done with the language of course, but not like enterprise fags really care.

>>74 I think >>69 has his terminology backward

>>58
Kiss your cellphone goodbye bitch. That and anything made by PLC or CNC or microcontrollers or... or...

There's a lot more use for embedded than enterprise shit.

>>73
Lol, this is such an hilarious troll. COBOL and Java are the business language, and MBAs are more likely going to understand C. No chance in hell of them understanding McCarthy's original Lisp, let alone a modern Lisp.

>>74
The higher the level, the less skill is needed.
Big failure. You either think high level = Visual Basic, or are a troll. You need different skills, which are sometimes harder to gain (but yield better and faster results once got, hence you prefer high-level languages).

Also limits what can be done with the language of course, but not like enterprise fags really care.
You're definitely ignorant. You think high-level = Spectrum BASIC. A high level language such as Python has access to the same things an OMG OPTIMIZED C program would, including POSIX (or Win32) and any library you can use from C, and it can even improve it as you can use these functions as first-class functions, introspect them, etc. They can also handle octet buffers and bit masks before you ask, and they support memory mapping, low-level sockets (even though there are much better ways to use them), ioctl, and absolutely everything you would do from C, except __asm { OMG EAX, [ECX*2+OPTIMIZED] } which is not C nor standard anyways.

One word, the optional but not forced low level of language, thread over

>>76
If you think LISP is hard, just go kill yourself.

Why do people use C when there's C++:

My main reason: Exceptions. I hate exceptions. When you realize that most people using computers are idiots, there can be no exceptions. Failure is a given. I recognize three exceptions, all three of which may not be caught by a compiler:

1. Stack Overflow. Been there, done that, had a program that would cause a stack overflow on Windows XP, but not on Windows 98. And the 98 computer had less RAM.
2. Segmentation Fault. Invalid Page Fault, whatever you want to call it. In a protected mode environment, accessing memory not owned by the program.
3. Integer Division by Zero. Nuff said.

>>79
When you realize that most people using computers are idiots,
there can be no exceptions
using computers are idiots, there can be no exceptions
there can be no exceptions
no exceptions