On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:57:12 +0400 "Alexander S." <alex0pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power, > it does make it more clunky to use.
Why should it be more clunky? It just allows you to fine-tune it. If you don't want to reinvent the wheel use libraries. Internally that's what very high-level languages do. They all have frameworks or similar stuff. And what exactly do you find clunky in it? > Being old isn't what makes C old; What? > the "1001 C Gotcha" lists are about what makes it bad. The ugly hacks > like longjmp and varargs make it bad. Indeed, those 2 are ugly. But just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to use it. I never used longjmp for instance, and only used varargs for a simple printf wrapper. Works fine if one keeps it simple. Yes there are probably more, but all in all I find C to be a very elegant language in itself. Google didn't turn up with anything interesting when I searched for that. > C++ would be a much more decent > language if it didn't build on C syntax. That's not C's fault is it? :) Maybe I should mention that I'm in physics, and generally we need very fast number crunchers. C and Fortran are generally our best bet. And I hate fortran! Matlab programs have to be very well written to be almost as quick as a C program. I once rewrote a matlab piece of software in C. Got from 15min of runtime to 0.4s. Same conditions exactly. Took me 1h to do it. Used it hundreds of times. Python programs we write are only fast enough because internally they rely on low-level routines (scipy and numpy) and they're mainly used for students' problems. -- Raimundo Martins <raimundoomart...@gmail.com>
