/prog/ - C-Based languages

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:01

C is an amazingly designed language. It's beautiful, simple, elegant and fast.
Everything a well designed programming language should be.

C++ then came along and shit all over Dennis Ritchie's masterpiece. Bjarne took a beautiful, simple, elegant and fast language. And kept shitting on it until all that was left was 'fast'. Dennis should of beat the shit out of him for turning his work of art into an abomination.

Then Gosling came along, surveyed the turd that Bjarne had dropped, and attempted to clean it up. He redesigned C++ to remove the crap and attain the elegance that C had. Unfortunately, in his cleaning frenzy, he over-simplified the language and sacrificed speed. In the name of simplicity he removed pointers, manual memory management, generics, operator overloading and native code compilation. A noble effort, but ultimately just as much of a failure as C++.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:03

C++ is a different language, it was never intended to be a C clone.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:10

should of
I hate you.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:22

At least C++ provides alternatives to C's shitty constructs. Enjoy being stuck on a single programming paradigm. The fact that C++ has a shitload of features is not a bad thing. Most C++ programmers subset it. A lot of companies have internal C++ style guides stating what features cannot be used (like inheritance, exceptions, RTTI, etc.). We don't need a new language **looking at you, D** in lieu of a piece of paper that says NO STL.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

>>4
Ever heard of syntatic sugar, preprocessors, KISS, not invented here?

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

I seriously fucking LOVE C. If I ever unfortunately have to touch sepples, I really only use simple templates, and classes to a minimal degree.

And I overload the comma operator ಠ◡ಠ

Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 21:40

Objective C is pretty cool.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

>>4
We don't need a new language **looking at you, D** in lieu of a piece of paper that says NO STL.
huh? no STL? thats your recipe for making C++ is not using the STL? then you might as well go back to using C because the STL is the only thing holding together the shitpile of memory managing things like inheritance and containers.

Seriously, people at some point I going to look at all the generics boilerplate to make OO work in C++ and ask themselves why, why are we polishing a turd. You can get all the speed of C++ in a safe garbage collected language like D. Stop using Java/C# as an example of why gc doesnt work because they are glorified scripting languages.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

The only bad thing about C++ is its exceptional cases, except when it is not.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

>>8
shit, Im usually to lazy to proof read, but this time Ive paid the price for it. I hate how there is no delete button on /prog/

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

>>7
cancer
Objective-C
Yep, you summed it up pretty well I think!

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:28

Objective-Cancer

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:37

C is an amazingly designed language. It's beautiful, simple, elegant and fast.
Everything a well designed programming language should be.
That's so wrong it's not even funny. Maybe (maybe) compared to C++ it is not much poorly designed. Maybe.

Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 22:38

>>11
>>12
Go ahead, say whats wrong with it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:51

>>14
It ain't Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:52

it's 2012 people

use javascript already

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:08

C is archaic crap where everything is undefined.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:24

>>16

0 == "0"            // true

0 == ""             // but also true?.. wow

"\n\r \t" == false  // true, IHBT

_{No thank you!}

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:25

>>13
Yes, not the best, but at least it was simple enough to visualize the actual instructions from the source code. Back then when your typical CPU had a fraction of a recent $2 microcontroller computing power.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:40

C'mon. It looks like you're trying to maintain C/C++¹ active by yelling about their long gone superiority. Most programmers don't need or don't care about raw speed at the cost of weird grammar issues or unsafe features, so let them for the ones who can handle them.

¹ Problem?

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:41

>>18
lets talk about javascript

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:49

>>20
weird grammar issues
C does not have these, that is why I like it. It is straightforward and clear. It will punish you for being stupid though, that is true.

I'm not saying use C for everything, god no. That would be stupid. I am saying that I thoroughly enjoy programming in it, and projects that can be done in C, I do in C. Lots of text manipulation? Then not C. Etc.

___________________________
¹ Nope.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:20

C++ is a different language, it was never intended to be a C clone.
It was intended to be Simula-67 with C syntax and no GC.
Its direct predecessor was known as ``C with classes''

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:38

>>19
That doesn't make it well designed, let alone ``amazingly designed, beautiful, simple, elegant and fast''.

>>22
It does, look up the lexer hack.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:23

>>8
It was just an example. The STL is widely avoided though. Even naive algorithms you write yourself can be faster because you don't really need to cover every single "edge case." Also executable bloat.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:27

>>14
Objective-C is a piece of shit. SEPPLES is better. No templates--you lose a Touring complete meta-language. The only reason it is used is to make shitty iPhone nonsense. Thank Jewish Jesus that Windows 8 is going to dominate that shit--kick Objective-C back to the ash heap of history in which it belongs.

Name: MR BALLMER 2012-07-20 1:35

>>26
Using Windows as an example of "good code" is an equally awful idea.

_windows.h

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 5:53

http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1342358345/46-

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!fR8duoqGZdD/iE5 2012-07-20 6:36

If you understand the principles behind the design of C++ then you will see that it is simply an embodiment of the same concepts that have been done in C, only with more convenience. Almost all the new features in C++ map directly to C equivalents. You are not obligated to use every single feature, but should only use the ones that make sense in the current situation. While it is true that many overuse these features and create "executable bloat" as a result, that is not the fault of the language but the user.

"There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroupstrup

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 7:25

>>29
``There are only two kinds of programming languages: Lisp and crap'' - my anus.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 8:58

"There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroupstrup

It's funny how deluded Bjarne, he actually thinks C++ is good and the only reason C is still more popular than C++ is because of "political reasons". In reality C++ has quite a few useful features, but the language additions are so badly designed that most people would rather make do with C or write slow bloated Java programs than deal with C++.

C++ is so bad that the only people that use it are pretty much forced too because C is too low level, and everything else has shit performance. If Dennis Ritchie had designed C++ everyone would still be using it for pretty much everything. Java would be used like a slightly beefier scripting language, not for serious programming.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 10:28

Read this and see the light:
http://m.simson.net/ugh.pdf
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/usoft.html
http://xahlee.info/comp/why_i_hate_C_lang.html
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 12:30

>>29
"There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroupstrup
this is wrong on so many levels. first of all the only languages in current use are C/C++ and a host of VM languages, there are Java/C# and then a bunch of scripting languages. (lets not bring up functional languages, no one actually uses those in production code).

and then there is the fact that C is just an overused systems language. the idea that you needed C to avoid bloat is a myth, even Delphi was able to produce code that was as fast and efficient as C. the fact that CS was dominated by CE was the main reason that C was used so much in the past when a lot of systems level programming had to be done directly to hardware on 80s vintage personal computers. There is no longer any reason to use C for normal applications that run on a modern OS

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:06

>>27
I wasn't even talking about the OS. Windows 8 will support writing apps in a variety of languages since it's based on COM. So you're not stuck with shitty Objective-C as with Apple.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:08

>>29
mah nigga

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:15

>>31
I don't get why people think C is well designed, or Dennis Ritchie was a good language designer. C lacks design. A C compiler, especially back then, was basically a macro preprocessor for assembly. It's like what Coffeescript is to Javascript. Now look at Haskell, Smalltalk, or Go; that's what a well designed language looks like.

Name: VIPPER 2012-07-20 14:24

>>36
It is quite consistent in some places, that is not something that can be said of many "modern" languages these days.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:12

>>36
C is still the perfect systems and embedded programming language. Electrical Engineers still pretty much only use C. There is no other language that gives such static control of data on memeory, the typing system is very controllable. It still cant be beat.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:16

>>38
[citation needed]

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:42

All the microcontroller manufacturers provide C compilers.
Many of them are GCC with a price tag.

C-Based languages

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:01

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:03

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:10

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:22

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

7 Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 21:40

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:28

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:37

14 Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 22:38

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:51

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:52

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:08

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:24

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:25

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:40

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:41

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:49

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:20

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:38

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:23

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:27

27 Name: MR BALLMER 2012-07-20 1:35

28 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 5:53

29 Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!fR8duoqGZdD/iE5 2012-07-20 6:36

30 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 7:25

31 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 8:58

32 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 10:28

33 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 12:30

34 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:06

35 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:08

36 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:15

37 Name: VIPPER 2012-07-20 14:24

38 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:12

39 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:16

40 Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:42

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:01

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:03

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:22

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:33

Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 21:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:43

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 21:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:28

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:37

Name: cancer.exe 2012-07-19 22:38

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:51

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 22:52

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:08

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:24

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:25

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:41

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-19 23:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 0:38

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:23

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 1:27

Name: MR BALLMER 2012-07-20 1:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 5:53

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!fR8duoqGZdD/iE5 2012-07-20 6:36

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 7:25

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 8:58

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 10:28

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 12:30

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:06

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:08

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 14:15

Name: VIPPER 2012-07-20 14:24

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:16

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-20 15:42