/tech/ - Technology★

kek

C isn't the be-all end-all of programming languages. Especially ANSI C. C11 is an improvement.

>>999963

tru dat

>Now no program had yet appeared on the computer and no internet had yet sprung up, for AT&T had not sent compilers on the computer and there was no one to write the program, but electricity came up from the walls and powered the whole surface of the motherboard. Then AT&T formed a programmer from the dust of the metal and breathed into their nostrils the breath of ANSI C, and the programmer became a software developer.

This is what UNIX weenies actually believe. They believe that C and UNIX were the beginning of computing and worship AT&T like God.

>And AT&T commanded the man, “You are free to use any text editor for ANSI C; but you must not read from the book of the knowledge of abstraction, for when you read from it you will certainly become obsolete.”

UNIX weenies believe that they are mere users who are not allowed to have the same knowledge as their gods, the creators of UNIX. These AT&T guys didn't know how to make an OS that doesn't suck, so you can't do it either. This is enforced by making everything too bloated to understand, like 15 million line kernels and 50 million line browsers. They don't understand that a better language could do more with better quality and a fraction of the code.

>When the coworker saw the book was good for scalability and the code was pleasing to the eyes, they installed a C++ and Java compiler and NodeJS with Electron.

These all came from UNIX culture. If they had actually read that book, they might have been able to make something that doesn't suck.

If there's one thing which truly pisses me off, it is the
attempt to pretend that there is anything vaguely "academic"
about this stuff.  I mean, can you think of anything closer
to hell on earth than a "conference" full of unix geeks
presenting their oh-so-rigourous "papers" on, say, "SMURFY:
An automatic cron-driven fsck-daemon"?

I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;
anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)
attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor has
no clothes.  The problem is a generation of swine -- both
programmers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unix
comes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularly
susceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.
(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionary
Soviet emigres.)

These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believing
that not only is better possible, but that better could have
once existed in the world before driven out by worse.  Well,
perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for some
incidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labs
or Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,
alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn't
expressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only we
paid more heed to the true, original strains of the unix
creed!)
                                                   
       In particular, I would like to see such an article
   separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design
   flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation
   bugs.

My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of the
material which is the subject of this list, is that the two
are inseparable.  The "fundamental design flaw" of unix is
an -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is good
enough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of users
and programmers should be hostage to the convenience or
laziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one's
time should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledge
should be regarded as provisional at best and expendable at
a moment's notice.

My view is that flaming about some cretin using a
fixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just as
much about unix as pointing out that this operating system
of the future has a process scheduler out of the dark ages
or a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or system
calls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)


The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much as
it is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.
Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure are
revealed to us through any examination of the minutiae of
any implementation, especially when we remember that one
cornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really no
more than the sum of its individual parts.  (Puny tools for
puny users.)

>>1000085

dupix btfo

>>1000085

>>>/MIT/

>>1000085

this is what autism looks like

>>999963

This. C11 is not half bad but ANSI is outdated shit.

And so it came to pass that Segmentation fault, core dumped.

>>1000394

>>999963

I disagree.

>>1000085

Have you ever had an original post that didn't involve posting a bunch of irrelevant opinion from butthurt academics because they made poor choices regarding their careers?

>>999986

>>999963

Mostly do my stuff in C89 these days. The good stuff comes from the simplicity. No mixing of declarations and code is hard to get used to in the start and no // comments as well. You completely stop thinking about getting better with the language, but instead trying to get you structure better. Newer stuff like VLA for instance has it's limits and the linux kernel team made a big fuss of getting it out of the code.

Your style get's better, your compiler get's faster, your structures get cleaner, but your language should never change.

t. C programmer for a living

>>1001469

>The good stuff comes from the simplicity

C isn't simplistic though.

http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c99/n1256.html#J

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/tree/master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~necula/cil/cil016.html

>>1001473

It's simpler then basically every other language except LISP and assembly. Yes, edge-cases exist, but most are either just things that look weird or that exploit the ability to play with addresses -- i.e. shit you won't see in a real program.

>>1001502

> i.e. shit you won't see in a real program.

oh god I wish

>>1001502

Kek. Here's an IDE driver in ColorForth.

https://colorforth.github.io/ide.html

>>1001469

>c89

Sounds like you are on Windows.

>>1001502

Java is simpler than C

>i.e. shit you won't see in a real program

LOL. This is right up there with "real programmers don't write memory unsafe code".

>>1001541

>Java is simpler then C.

References are more complicated then pointers, classes are more complicated then structures, interfaces are more complicated then unions, exceptions are more complicated then errno and packages are more complicated then header files.

The C11 standard is less then 600 pages (at least the 2007 draft I could find), but it includes the standard library. Without it it would be closer to 200 pages. The Java 11 standard is 772 pages and it doesn't include any library.

Give me a language without runtime with a compiler as small as tcc, pcc or the plan9 collection. And no Forth bullshit.

>>1001562

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL

>>1001553

>he can't understand Java

Yeah, you're a brainlet. Java was created because C was too hard for pajeets.

You are even dumber than a pajeet.

>>1001527

No, but I do cross-compile.

It's just what I usually call it. ANSI C is more popular I guess.

>>1001473

Yeah, I didn't articulate it that well.

I mean compared to the shear scope of other languages that are not interpreted.

Obvious counter example being java, it's ham fisted into every uni course, because it is "industry wide" and "maps well unto paradigms that you will learn".

Back in my fucking high school's CS course we had to learn and speak "public static void main" out loud to get to actually writing code. That was the homework that day.

The teacher didn't understand half of it, the students didn't know why you had to type this shit, before stuff worked. It's complexity where there should be none (yet). It's just the state of affairs: OOP has to be taught and java or in rare(er) cases CPP is used. The concept of C, where these paradigms are actively avoided falls by the way side.

That's (for me) the point of C. If stuff get's complicated and dependencies have to be established you use Entity component systems instead of OO. You build the system that you need, not the language dictates how you should be doing it.

>>1001723

>i have to reinvent the wheel every time because i'm too much of a brainlet to understand java

Yeah. You sound exactly like every C programmer I've ever met.

>>1001562

>give me something to solve x, but not an obvious solution to my problem

There are scheme compilers smaller than TCC anyway

>>1001716

Not OP but complex =/= difficult. I believe he was arguing that it was unnecessarily complex rather than difficult.

>>1001733

If you're writing C for a living it's usually in an environment where reinventing the wheel is required or make sense. Not everyone works with winapi java applications you know.

>>1001773

>>give me something that's isn't bloated shit

>what about retarded bullshit for intellectual academics in their ivory towers?

Mandatory garbage collection is for faggots, as is dynamic typing (the reason why ML > Lisp).

>>1001825

It is the thinking that this is a good thing that is the retarded part. I have seen so many fucking base16 encode implementations.

>>1001830

>ciscos backbone router implementations are an ivory tower

lol

>>1001833

For shit like that absolutely use a library whenever you can.

>>999948 (OP)

good lord, terry would be proud, but probably still call you a nigger

>>1001562

how does plan9 deal with gpus?

>>1001839

It does not.

>>1001850

Interesting approach, it's probably the only sane thing to do.

>>1001836

>base16 encode

but this is built in. You mean base64?

>>1001867

plan9 is late 80s/early 90s tech, before the advent of GPUs.

>>1001871

>but this is built in.

If you mean for one byte of it to stdout

>>1001871

Well there were 2D GPUs, on Amiga and SVGA cards like Matrox Millenium. People used to wank on Usenet about how smooth they could scroll windows and move the mouse pointer while formatting a floppy disk. I guess now the wankers have moved on to argue about screen tearing when moving windows in their danktop environments that needs latest Nvidia ThreadreaperX GPU and 320 gigs RAM. Some things never change.

>>1000085

There isn't really much of an alternative to UNIX even though there should be, and everything is written in C or a variant of C. What would be some ideal alternatives to C? I'm going to study OS development for fun, so I want some different ideas.

>>1002505

Well if you go on the ColorForth site, he talks about how it only requires 1% of the code that C does to accomplish the same thing. So that's pretty interesting if you're writing OS by yourself.

>>1002616

what's the object code look like?