Let's have a thread for the C programming language. It's an excellent language.
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-24 21:51
C gets too much credit for being the `first' standard, portable programming language. FORTRAN 66? ALGOL 68? Hell, even the early Lisps were quite well standardized.
Where did this myth that C was the `first' come from, exactly?
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-24 21:51
no it's not
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-24 22:00
>>2
That's not why C gets credit. It gets credit because it's an incredibly versatile, simple, and has great syntax.
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-24 22:18
>2011
>still talking about C
mfw this is a text-only board.
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-24 22:23
C will be phased out once we figure out that squeezing the last drops of performance out of a single core is not a good idea and programmers in general stop being so resistant to learning new things.
Does nobody have the original troff sources floating around? It would be trivial to make a `proper' PDF copy complete with the original diagrams, and I would gladly pay for a DRM-free ebook. They could dedicate it to Dennis Ritchie or something.
>>21
Make a `for_each' macro and understand pointers and structures. When you master C and don't fear to abuse the preprocessor, things can be pretty well abstracted.
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-25 11:45
>>21
Try writing inline functions and macros, use _msize and malloc_size for pointers.
When you write a line of C you have a good idea of how much actual work it's going to make the computer do.
e.g. with for (i=0;i<10;i++) a[i]=i*i; you have a multiply, a store, and a comparison.
The same thing in a more abstracted language might involve looking stuff up in a symbol dictionary, mallocs, creating objects on the heap, reference counting, garbage collection, blahblahblah, hundreds and hundreds of cycles.
That's why I like C, you know what's going on underneath.
I suspect that this thread was created in order to draw the C-tards out of this thread: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1319206002 and I think that it was about 60% effective
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-25 20:39
>>11
There was a partial TeX version posted on /prog/ a year or two ago.
Can you cite the exact passage in anyone of the the various C standards that mentions threads? Because for the life of me, I don't see any mention of them in any of the standards.
>>31
You still haven't cited the passage that mention threads in one the various C standards. Could it be because threads aren't portable?! No way. Uh huh. Now tell us all what you do for a living again bitch.
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-25 22:49
I have a very serious question C. I see people dynamically allocate memory when the memory isn't variable at all. Why would they do this?
Name:
Anonymous2011-10-25 22:55
>>33
You ain't gonna get a quality C answer here. This is because 98% of the idiots only know know the loser language called lisp. Of those 98%, 80% working hourly general labor jobs not related to computer programming, and the other 18% just does shit jobs like maintaining software or writing simple test scripts.