+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Posts 41 to 50 of 147
  1. #41

    I live on CUK

    d000hg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    My house
    Posts
    24,978
    Thanks (Given)
    53
    Thanks (Received)
    168
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    IMO the reason so many of you hate 'C' is because you're lazy bastards.
    Damn right. I'm very lazy, why bother reinventing the wheel?
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryPoppins View Post
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    Urine is quite nourishing

  2. #42

    More fingers than teeth

    zeitghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    71,912
    Thanks (Given)
    187
    Thanks (Received)
    1270
    Likes (Given)
    591
    Likes (Received)
    1613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyman View Post
    WHS

    C is a great language. Small and powerful. Lethal in the wrong hands, of course (i.e. many of the above posters).

    Still have my dog-eared K&R "The C Programming Language".

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    More work for us Bogey old chum!

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    IMO the reason so many of you hate 'C' is because you're lazy bastards.
    Very probably.

    Or they've got more than 8k of rom to play with...
    Quote Originally Posted by VectraMan View Post
    Of course I'd rather write assembler and ignore all this OOP nonsense.
    You just can't beat a bit of handcrafted assembler...

    As long as it's not written by me, of course...

  3. #43

    Godlike

    VectraMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    7,737
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    Yes but few people mean C++.net when they say C++. Most people mean ANSI (or some close attempt) C++, not managed C++.
    Yes mangled C++ is nothing to do with C++. All the .NETy bits are horribly botched into the language in a way that'd give Bjarne Stroustrup a nervous breakdown.
    Ye canne change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics
    Ye canne change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.

  4. #44

    I live on CUK

    d000hg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    My house
    Posts
    24,978
    Thanks (Given)
    53
    Thanks (Received)
    168
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    445

    Default

    I once thought (as a naive teen) it would be cool to create ASM++, which would be a way to do OO with all your coding in assembly...


    ... I'm not afraid to admit my mistakes
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryPoppins View Post
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    Urine is quite nourishing

  5. #45

    Godlike

    VectraMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    7,737
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    I once thought (as a naive teen) it would be cool to create ASM++, which would be a way to do OO with all your coding in assembly...
    I once started writing a C++ to C compiler, partly because I only had a C compiler and wanted to use C++. I did get a fair way into it, and had member functions and variables, constructors/destructors, public/proteced/private etc. all working, but never got as far as doing polymorphism. That was a pretty good lesson in understand how the language actually works underneath.

    ASM++ would have been interesting. Most of the OOP aspect is compile time, so your ASM++ could have interpreted a few extensions and spat out regular asm.

    Has anyone ever done MSIL (that's .NET assembler). I'd be a lot more interested in .NET if I could do that. I know a fair bit about Adobe Flash "assembler" too, and I bet not many people can claim that (or have a requirement).
    Ye canne change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics
    Ye canne change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.

  6. #46

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    248
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VectraMan View Post
    Has anyone ever done MSIL (that's .NET assembler). I'd be a lot more interested in .NET if I could do that. I know a fair bit about Adobe Flash "assembler" too, and I bet not many people can claim that (or have a requirement).
    I have done a little of this in the past using C# Reflection.Emit to create a proxy class at runtime (the client would not let me use DynamicProxy or anything else non-MS ). Apparently .NET 3.5 has a lot more suppport for this although I've yet to use it as to be honest, generally most of the libraries are pretty optimal as they are.

  7. #47

    doGlike

    Churchill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    On the rug licking my balls.
    Posts
    25,749
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    111
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    155

    Default

    C is a good programming language if you're a good enough programmer!

    Btw, there's no reason why you can't develop 'C' code in an object oriented manner, just think 'struct' and pointers to functions...

  8. #48

    I post more often than I breathe


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    74,801
    Thanks (Given)
    1679
    Thanks (Received)
    917
    Likes (Given)
    1679
    Likes (Received)
    1358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    C is a good programming language if you're a good enough programmer!
    Absolutely! However if you want to concentrate on the needs of the business too then you have something with more tools : particularly a good string class(or struct if you prefer). Personally my resources are too limited to be split between technical/business(i.e. I am too stupid) so I need something stronger.

  9. #49

    Super Tramp

    RichardCranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Up Tulip Creek
    Posts
    12,280
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    115
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    C is a good programming language if you're a good enough programmer!
    That sentence felt like some words were missing from the end. Like this:

    "C is a good programming language if you're a good enough programmer to compensate for the language's shortcomings!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Btw, there's no reason why you can't develop 'C' code in an object oriented manner, just think 'struct' and pointers to functions...
    When I was at college, the first language we were taught was BASIC. This was two-fold. Firstly, so we could start cutting code at the first opportunity, which the Senior Lecturer thought important. The second was more mean. We were taught structured programming from the start and were told up front that any use of "GOTO" would result in instant dismissal from the course: they meant it too. So our first few projects were written in structured BASIC. (We then went on to learn other languages.) In our two years of being taught programming, none of us ever coded an unconditional jump.

    The second point being, that if we could learn to write structured code in a language that discouraged it, we would be able to do so in anything. Hence, some years later when I started using Pascal I found it fitted like a pair of old slippers.

    Pascal is a logical, clean, elegant language; it is desperately 'correct'. Furthermore it discourages inadvertent programming errors by being completely unforgiving. I think that is why so many people hate it: they were taught it at Uni as their first language and it is no fun to learn programming in an unforgiving environment. Pascal is the starch-stiff matron who you do not respect until you are a parent yourself.


    I agree there is no reason why you cannot produce structured or OO code in C; C does not prevent it. But C does nothing to help or encourage good practice either. It is fine for a good programmer to use who is being good. But it does not force bad programmers into good practice and allows - no, encourages - mediocre programmers to slip into bad practice.

    Hence my argument that from a business perspective, C is a bad programming language.

  10. #50

    doGlike

    Churchill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    On the rug licking my balls.
    Posts
    25,749
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    111
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardCranium View Post
    "C is a good programming language if you're a good enough programmer to effectively exploit the language!"
    Thought I'd fix that for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardCranium View Post
    Hence my argument that from a business perspective, C is a bad programming language.
    What business perspective?

    You would rather have a sh!t programmer be compensated for by a language that will permit them to do no wrong rather than a decent programmer who knows what they're doing?

    Oh well.
    Last edited by Churchill; 25th August 2009 at 09:18.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.