No offence
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
659 points (92.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
32455 readers
902 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
C is old, ubiquitous and still does not have a good replacement for its low-level cross-platform usecases, so I'll believe it when I see it π
Rust is doing a very decent job of low-level cross platform. C just has a very long history.
Its cross-platform support (not just for using but also for building it) is not there yet, and it is quite huge and unstandardized with only one full implementation. I'd agree the last part will change with age, but given the frequent large changes and feature additions I am afraid it will be harder and harder and it is simply too complex and fast-moving for many low-level applications. It is closer to C++ than C in my eyes. I'd be happy seeing it replace C++ though for its memory safety benefits!
At the same time, C is the only stable ABI available for Rust.
That's true, but they're working on an ABI implementation. It's no mean feat with a language like Rust. A quick search around the Internet found various possible candidates, though many of the discussion threads have petered out.
Rust wonβt replace c.
The programs are too bloated for many embedded systems where every byte counts because itβs in ROM or loaded jnto IRAM
All that memory safety and garbage collection, for example, comes at a big cost
I don't think Rust has a garbage collector.
Does it need replacing?
I wouldn't say "need", but there are possible improvements to ergonomics and safety that wouldn't make the language itself more complex or high level. I think it does its job quite well though and will be here for decades to come.
I'm not too familiar with C, but I was under the impression that C++ was deceloped as a superset to C, and was capable of everything C could do. Is that not the case?
I mean yeah, if you restrict yourself to the C part of C++ it can do everything C can. But then you're not getting any of the advantages of C++.
Once you start using things like classes and templates heavily, your program will quickly outgrow low-end hardware.
"Outgrow low-end hardware"?
What does a programming language have to do with this?
Everything.
Every programming language is an abstraction layer between the programmer and the machine that will run the code. But abstraction isn't free. Generally speaking, the higher the abstraction, the less efficient the program.
C++ optionally provides a much higher level of abstraction than pure C, which makes C++ much nicer to work with. But the trade off is that the program will struggle to run in resource constrained environments, where a program written in C would run just fine.
And to be clear, when I say "low-end hardware", I'm not talking about the atom-based netbook from 2008 you picked up for $15 at a yard sale. It will run C++ based programs just fine. I'm talking about 8- or 16-bit microcontrollers running at <100 MHz with a couple of hundred kB of RAM. Such machines are still common in many embedded applications, and they do not handle C++ applications gracefully.
Compile times get insanely huge.
Compile a c program with gcc then with g++.
You will quickly see the difference in size
And speed too. A small program using only C features can compile 5x faster with a c compiler then a c++ one. (GCC will use c++ mode on a .cop file so make sure it is .c)
Ada has been around since 1983 and is objectively superior. Yes I will die on that hill.
It's too bad programmers are all such egotards they think they can write bugfree programs in C, while whining about how "restrictive" a safe language like Ada is.