On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:46:17 +0100 Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> wrote:
> > Le 02/03/2015 23:43, T.J. Duchene a écrit : > > We just see things differently. My first question would be: is > > there are a justified reason NOT to use C? > > There is a very good reason, and I heard it was given by > Kernighan and Ritchie: "we assume the programmer knows what (s)he is > doing". And there is a second reason: C is very tied to the hardware; > it is lacking abstractions. > Fair enough. If you need that level of abstraction to get the job done, so be it. It's at least a better reason that most of the others that I have heard. I would comment that levels of abstraction can be achieved in any language, and that C is just as good any other at doing so. You use abstracted libraries everyday. Although I would have to disagree that C is not tied to the hardware. That is the whole point of C. That is why C is used over assembly and why C is considered a universal language. It's usually the first one ported to any processor. Saying it is hardware dependent doesn't make sense when C, and the Linux kernel written in C are used on so many different forms of hardware. > I had > experiences of big programs in C and my experience is that debugging > is long (and probably never ended) and evolution is a nightmare. That can be true, but it is also true of any language, or of project of substantial size: say 2,000,000+ lines of code. It really depends on how well it was designed and documented. It can be discussed > wether the choice makes sense, but I don't see even why C should > always be considered. > > Efficiency and guaranteed portability, Diedler. You can't say the same of Python, Perl, etc - because in order to use them, you have to compile them from C first. Cheers! t.j. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
