Is C a 'good' programming language?

[VectraMan]

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.

[d000hg]

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

[VectraMan]

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).

[Jaws]

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.

[Churchill]

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...

[BrilloPad]

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.

[RichardCranium]

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!"

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.

[Churchill]

"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.

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.

[DimPrawn]

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

You could say the same about programming in binary machine language, but would you recommend it?

[d000hg]

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

Maybe, but my top-notch developers would still be more productive in Java/C# in terms of features/day. I can't sell "my expert developers are fixated on showing the size of their e-penis by using outdated tools", I can sell "my expert developers are experienced with modern tools and technologies which enable them to work at maximum productivity".