C, C++, C#, Objective-C

What's with all the C's? is this a family? are there others? which is the best for what i want?

0/10

BitC is the best

...for the exact thing you want

C            -   writing OSs
C++          -   writing Applications for windows/linux
C#           -   writing xbewks games with XNA
Objectve-C   -   writing applications for Mac/iOS

HIBT?

C - Writing OSes for the lack of a better language
C++ - Writing fast but hellish applications
C# - Faggots.NET
Objective-C - iFaggots

C - shit
C++ - shit
C# - shit
Objective-C - shit
C-- - language of Lesser Gods

>>6
Real talk.

>>8
Small talk.

Smalltalk > Obj-C, C/C++ and Java together

C > Smalltalk, Obj-C, C++ and Jæv together,

Javascript > Smalltalk > Obj-C, C/C++ and Java together

>>5
C++ - writing Applications
IHBT

>>10,12
fuck you troll

((C && C++) > Java > (Obj-C || Smalltalk) > C#);

Lol C#..

>>15
Expert non-C# user.

>>15
How many of those languages endorse expressions in void context?

>>17
How many of those languages endorse expressions in frozenvoid context?

>>17
>>18
How many of those languages endorse expressions in my anus

Objective-C has a lisp...

>>20
Objective-lisp has a C...

>>21
Objective-C based on C and smalltalk
smalltalk based on lisp

What's the deal with Smalltalk anyway? what does it bring to the table that means it can add something to C and make this 'better' Objective-C?

>>23
Another take on OOP, of course.

>>23
It's got Alan Kay's fingerprints all over it. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, you shouldn't be programming.

Not that Objective-C is good.

>>23
It's reflective.

>>26
what's reflective?

>>26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28programming%29#Smalltalk

I'm sure it applies to others, but I know the Io example is a caricature of its own process. The getSlot()s can be translated to getSlot("getSlot") operations and so on (it's getSlots all the way down -- no, I lied, there is a CFunction barrier.) Of course strongly reflective languages like to do everything with their reflection process (sometimes with syntactic sugar) rather than providing a distinct reflection environment (which is more common in languages with a bit of reflection "tacked on")

>>25
What do you mean?

>>29
I mean Alan Kay was the driving force and designer behind it.

>>30
I see... so what?

>>31
Ah, in that case, let me direct you to the second sentence in >>25.

>>32
Ok. I am not programming, so tell me everything I need to know.

Almost any modern language comes from C.

Independently appear:
- C (structured, mid-level programming, compiled), used in OS and app design.
- Lisp (functional, high level, garbage collector, (byte-)interpreted), used in AI and research
- Smalltalk (first OOP, high level, GC, interpreted) by Xerox. Still used in academical environments, I think.

Then:
- C++ (C + OOP, syntax closer to C, compiled) OS and apps, like C.
- Objective-C (C + Smalltalk, syntax closer to Smalltalk, compiled). Basically only for iProgramming.

After that:
- Java (C + OOP + garbage collector, byte-interpreted). Applets (90's Flash), desktop apps, server side apps.
- C# (Microsoft's copy of Java: basically same features). Apps, server side apps. Applets through Silverlight, but there's no place for it between Flash and HTML5.

>>34
Uh, Lisp is much older than C, and Smalltalk hardly has anything to do with C. The rest you mentioned do borrow ideas and syntax from C.

>>35
Yeah, that's why it says independently appear. It says right there.

>>36
Also, some details about Lisp are wrong:
functional
It's hardly purely functional, it's multi-paradigm, so if you want to write imperative, declarative, OO or functional code, you can do just that. Functional style may be preferred to some degree, but nothing stop you from using the same style in C (except that C's facilities are not as strong in this regard)
high level
Yes, but it can also be used for mid and low-level stuff.
If you want to access the hardware or memory directly, you can do that - most implementations provide FFIs, there's also portable FFI implementations and it can also be done fairly efficiently, especially if you use implementation-specific stuff. Most implementations which compile to native code also have their own assemblers and assemblers can also be implemented portably.
(byte-)interpreted
Just a handful of implementations are. Most compile straight to native code. Interpreted-only implementations are actually a minority - the only one I can think of is GNU CLISP. SBCL, CCL, ECL, ACL, LispWorks, ... all compile to native code, but some also have optional interpreters.

One thing you did get right and that is that most Lisps are GCed, but same is true for most high-level languages.

>>34
iProgramming? what about gnu step?

>>34
Smalltalk was influenced by LISP.

>>34
The entire ML family, Haskell, Clojure, Factor, APL's descendents, all your scripting languages, and Common Lisp itself if you're counting C++ as modern. If I wanted to do some research, I could give you many more. Sounds like "almost any modern language comes from C" to me.