A good third language?

Okay, my main two languages are Ruby and C++. Although I've learned Ada out of school and I'm learning Scheme in school now, I don't consider them languages I'm generally GOOD with. So I'm wondering what third language I could learn to balance myself out.

Learn C and CL.

>>1

what kinds of things are you interested in? Anyways, I recommend assembly or c, or c then assembly.

>>2

I more or less know C, but I prefer to use C++ when possible. Also, what are the benefits of CLOS over say, OCaml or Haskell?

>>4
CL doesn't force functional programming

>>5

Well, technically you can do imperative programming in even scheme. It's just that you shouldn't.

>>6
It's not the advised elegant solutions, we know, but it's possible.

>>5
OCaml doesn't either. It tucks mutability away nicely too.

C#

Scheme.

Assembly, CL, Scheme, Haskell.

python vs ruby vs perl go

>>9 MS Fag alert.

Ruby and C++? I'd try C, or Javascript.

>>1

C.

Then, you overwrite your Ruby knowledge with assembly language knowledge. Only girls use languages named after jewelry and snaky names.

You can also forget C++, but it won't hurt too much.

That's it: C and assembly. You're now a Real Man.

>>14
C is slow, Fortran that is.

well you know two oop languages already, maybe you should pick up a third oop language (like java) to broaden your understanding of programming

If you want to work for defense or government, stick with ADA and get good at it.

>>16
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard so far. If you want to broaden your understanding of programming, study a non OOP language. That way you can see how the same problems are solved from a different perspective.

>>14
I agree.  Everything important is written in C.  If you want to write software for anything important C is a must.  Most high-tech companies use C++ but don't actually use much of the C++ features that aren't in C.

Examples:
Siemens - Makes control software for equipment used in nuclear power plants.
Ericsson - Makes the world's best LTE/4G base stations.
Cienna - Makes the world's fastest ethernet/optical equipment which is used for submarine optical lines which run under the ocean from north america to europe.

All of these examples are what I consider "real programming"  Everything else like web-design and UI are just fluffy hobby shit that anyone can do.  This kind of programming actually involves thinking hard about what you have to do, taking into consideration a ton of constraints.  Having done both high-level programming (UI/Web), mid-level (Game industry), and low level (embedded real-time drivers), I would have to say that the low level is where it's at.  It's the most challenging and most fun if you are tenacious and are able to become obsessive with your work.  It also lands the most money.  LTE/4G designers make more than directors.

>>19
You've obviously have never written any GUI in *nix, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement about UI.

>>20
I have. Wrote GUI's in both GTK and and QT.  It's much easier than drivers.

>>19

I do support this.

>>20
>*nix
>GUI

Bitch, please.

>>21
I'm talking about having to deal with X.

>>22
So you think it's easy to write a GUI in an environment where a lot of the libraries are buggy?

>>23
Never had to deal with the X windowing system, but I heard it was a bitch.

>>22
GTK and QT actually make a lot more sense than what Microsoft uses  (WPF/Windows Presentation Foundation) which was a lot more convoluted but was refreshing to learn.  WPF was the only framework where I had to actually read a book to understand.  GTK and QT, you can just start programming in without any experience and without reading anything.

>>24
OpenGL, make your own widgets

>>26
Not would that introduce more code bloat, but on top of that, there would be a possible increase in security holes.

>>18
how about you use your ``lisp'' to scrub a toilet

oh wait, you can't scrub a toilet with shit!

>>14

I ALREADY know the conventions of C that aren't C++. I choose not to use C because it is often less safe than C++, involves more code, and is harder to maintain. As for assembly, although I intend to learn it, I realize it is very limited in what is SHOULD be used for.

>>10

And why scheme over other functional languages?

I also started on Ruby, later moved to C++.  A third language?  Heavily dependent on your goals.  Java, C, C#, a visual language?

If you are like me, you like OOP and imperative languages.  I would encourage trying out functional languages, too.  Haskell is a good start.

>>29
I choose not to use C because it is often less safe than C++, involves more code, and is harder to maintain.

I think you're talking out of your ass again.

HASKAL

>>29
I choose not to use a bike because it is often less safe than a bike with a broken electric motor attached to it.
LOL!

>>33
2/10

>>31

Templates > Void pointers and preprocessor macros
Classes > Structs without inheritance or encapsulation... or methods for that matter.
Namespaces > Name prefixing like a bitch

Give me 3 good reasons to use pure C rather than the features offered through C++.

>>35
C++ is great for incompetent programmers, I suggest you continue to use it.

>>35
Templates of templates of templates... → verbose
Classes with weak ctor/op overload → insane implicit casts
Namespaces → using old #include, lol. Also * | c++filt

>>35
a)You inherit the bugs in C++.

b)If a different programmer uses a different subset of C++, you're pretty much fucked when it comes to the build phase.

c)Templates aren't that reliable.

>>35

template have their draw backs as well. If you want to minimize code size in the binary, then void pointers are a better idea. You could just do this in seeples of course, as an alternative to using templates. Or you could have the data types inherit from a pure virtual class that provides a set of methods that will be used, which is not very convenient to do in C, although it is certainly possible with the right conventions.

classes are nice.

namespaces are nice.

Also, I keep seeing stuff like static_cast and reinterpret_cast in code at work, were the thing it is being casted to is determined based upon a member variable flag. This is one way to do object oriented stuff in C. It's as if classes in seeples aren't good enough, or aren't complete enough for every usage case.