Whats the purpose of C still existing??
Doesnt C++ stick its foot up C's ass or is C still around so B doesnt get lonely?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-14 22:21
C++ is made of suck, bloat, bloat and some more suck. C is around because C++ sucks so bad. Multiparadigm my arse -- tell that to the dumbass n00b programmer who gets caught in the "well I might use this method for something in the future, but not quite yet though" trap, or starts wanking over type safety, or ceases to be able to use pointers without sum o'dat "boost::shared_ptr<FuckingUglyClassName> refgargar(new FuckingUglyClassName);" which doesn't look like anything useful, overloads basically everything and makes Readability Jesus cry bitter tears of the darkest pitch.
That answer your question?
Name:
Previous poster2006-12-14 23:21
Sorry for being such a idiot on how dumb i was cause im stupid doody head
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 1:47
C is still good if
1) you're developing on an embedded system.
2) you're writing a kernel
3) you prefer simpler frameworks
4) you want to teach something that isn't language specific
Thse are some of the reasons
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 4:16
c is good if you want to get decent performance on 1 week old hardware.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 4:56
GTK is a proof of how great C performance is, compared to QT C++
P.S.: You never got paid for it, because if you had, you'd know your time is more expensive than more powerful hardware.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 14:17
>>21
If you think javadoc is the biggest problem with java, you don't have long left to live
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 15:56
>>21
scientific computations done in // on a server farm is not serious? would you write my code in Java? could you bear all the laughs around you as you try to seriously tell professional scientists that you want to program in ... Java?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 16:47
>>24
I'm not really sure you know who you are replying to, I was agreeing with the guy who said garbage collection is shit for scientific applications, by insulting the guy who insulted him. I was agreeing because I have written programs for scientific computations done on server farms, and I know how absolutely shitty Java would be for it. Also, >>22 is a moron because he has no idea how valuable time is on a server farm, and how much skill it takes to optimize parallel programs so more can be done in that time.
>>24
Who the fuck said Java? I was thinking Lisp, Python, Ruby... Except for small, mission-critical, demanding points, where C can be justified, as well as anything that requires low-level interaction with the hardware, such as the OS, there's little reason to torture yourself with low-level languages. (And in any case, there's no reason to torture yourself with Java.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-16 19:28
All we know is that if it didn't have a purpose, it wouldn't exist anymore. But it does exist and hence has a purpose.
>>27 >>28 >>29
stfu, I already won with my Fibonacci sequence written in haskell!!!!!!!!!!
fib 0 = 0
fib 1 = 1
fib n = motherfuckers!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-17 11:23
>>28 But it does exist and hence has a purpose.
We are discussing the stupidity of this purpose. Its purpose is to be chosen by retarded managers who only read stupid magazines full of Sun advertisement (in both ads and articles pages) and don't have a fucking clue of software programming.
If you don't get anal over "proper OOP practices" then C++ isn't all that bad and actually makes code more readable than C.
But yeah, marketing weenies in suits will look at your code when showing them your portfolio in a job interview and they'll be the assholes who'll go WELL WHY DIDNT YOU WRITE UP A UML DIAGRAM SHOWING YOUR MULTIPLE INHERITENCE PARADIGMS? I really don't think most level-headed programmers are as anal as the suits are, which is why the suits make us use Java so much because Java typically forces you to be OOP-anal.
OOP "best practices" (read: anal) are for suckers and losers who think they're doing any good with it. It makes shit several times slower to write, let alone read and maintain, also long in text and, as an added bonus, it's usually less efficient.
"Design patterns" (read: copypasta) are part of OOP "best practices" because of the inability of their language and programming style to generalize and do anything useful. My motto is, if you're copypasting more than 20 characters from anywhere, you're doing something wrong, /**************/ like stuff excluded.
It's just an attempt to give software 'engineers' a set of standards to build software by, much like proper engineers have.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-18 6:57
>>36
That's just coddling the weak and those rendered uncreative by the oppressive primary, secondary and post-secondary education systems. And those who're in it just for the money of course.
proper engineers have to work within the laws of physics. There are realistic physical manifestations involved. Software engineering "standards" usually consist of unrealistic jizzing the fuck all over the place.
If in physics there's something you don't understand, you can always hide behind the uncharted depths of nature. You can always blame God. You didn't make it so complex yourself. But if your program doesn't work, there is no one to hide behind. You cannot hide behind an obstinate nature. If it doesn't work, you've messed up.
-- Edsgar Dijkstra
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-18 9:36
>>36
Unnecessary. If you can think of a repeating pattern, you should be to create a function, or by some other way reproduce it without copypasta.