Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Why C sucks

Name: Anonymous 2009-08-20 11:53

Shitty,slow and bug-prone string functions. NULL termination and strlen are shining examples of defective design.

No memory management, plenty of things going down the drain if
you don't watch them all. Malloc and free are slow and inefficient, and they ruin performance if used in fast loops.

Variadic functions: all C has is shitty macro which doesn't implement anything useful. C cannot determine types of such variadiac arguments at runtime. Everything is static.

Typeof(non-standard)/sizeof/pointer casts in many programs show how defective the implementation of only object C manages(the pointer) natively. Pointers(and arrays which are also pointers) are the glue of C, yet they lack anything useful(like size or datatype,sizeof alternatives like _msize/malloc_usable_size and typeof are ugly non-standard hacks)  and people use void pointers for felxibility.

Name: Anonymous 2009-08-21 1:12

>>20
SBCL, CMUCL or CCL
Have you ever tried to compile these monsters? When they added CMUCL to Gentoo, it took ten people working a month and a half just to research the dependency graphs. There's no possible way you could use that shit for actual desktop binary deployment short of selling your soul to the ACLU.

>>19
Oh, don't get me started on Haskell. I followed the benchmarks for a while, thinking it showed some promise. It turned out the authors of the compiler were special-casing the benchmark algorithms and substituting actual C and assembler. Every time someone tried to ask about this on the mailing list or IRC, that dons guy would pop up with the same answer to everything. "Did you use the latest version? We just issued a patch for that within ten seconds of you asking your question!" Most unprofessional and insulting crowd I've ever seen.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List