|
pasztorpisti wrote: The C and C++ languages are disastrous.
I think this is rather unfair. C was created to make the writing of operating system code much easier; C++ was an improvement but still based around the same design goals. The fact that people wrote other programs using those languages is the fault of the developers rather than the languages. Yes, there are shortcomings compared with some modern languages, but neither C nor C++ were designed to do some of the work that people expect of it these days.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
If we speak of a massive codebase like one that an operating system has then the build time and header hell are alone enough to say that C/C++ is a bad choice. The problem is that the accident has already happened and windows and linux are already in C. The difficulties in parsing and translating C++ just add to compile times and project complexities. In theory it would be easy to design a language that is suitable for writing operating system code without several defects that accumulated in C/C++ over the decades (because of its backward compatibility) so I think my statement isn't unfair at all. Not to mention the different C/C++ languages per compiler, this language isn't compatible even with itself in practice!
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: enough to say that C/C++ is a bad choice.
When it was chosen, it was the only choice.
pasztorpisti wrote: In theory it would be easy to design a language that is suitable for writing operating system code without several defects
I worked for a company (Sperry) that did just that. They spent thousands developing a language that had no practical use except for writing their operating system, which was fast reaching the end of its useful life.
pasztorpisti wrote: I think my statement isn't unfair at all.
I meant it was unfair in that you were judging a language developed in the 80s by the standards of today's knowledge and technology.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: When it was chosen, it was the only choice.
Today its not the only choice. Some people choose it because they don't know its defects, or they don't have other choices to develop low level code, and because of the big masses of legacy code.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I worked for a company (Sperry) that did just that. They spent thousands developing a language that had no practical use except for writing their operating system, which was fast reaching the end of its useful life.
We don't know how good that language was. Its not sure that the language was good. Even if something is good, it doesn't mean it becomes widespread. "The rich gets richer." as the C/C++ becomes more and more widespread.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I meant it was unfair in that you were judging a language developed in the 80s by the standards of today's knowledge and technology.
If we were speaking about its application in the 80s then it would be unfair. Since we are speaking about its application today its not unfair to say that the only thing that keeps it alive is legacy code. Its just telling the cruel truth.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Today its not the only choice.
Quite true, and I never disputed this.
pasztorpisti wrote: We don't know how good that language was.
I do, It was OK and somewhat similar to C, but so specialised it had no chance of being used on any hardware other than the 1100/2200 range.
pasztorpisti wrote: its not unfair to say that the only thing that keeps it alive is legacy code.
There are still lots of new developments being done with C and/or C++ because people think they are the right language for the job, despite their many shortcomings, so in that respect it probably is unfair.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I do, It was OK and somewhat similar to C, but so specialised it had no chance of being used on any hardware other than the 1100/2200 range.
The low level language I was dreaming about is general purpose like C. If that language was hardware specific then its death is natural when the hardware goes out of production because its not a general purpose lang, its rather a high level assembly for the target hardware.
C is quite general purpose to be able to translate to any processors. By fixing some things in C++ and removing the header hell (by using units like in pascal) it could be a very nice low level language.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: There are still lots of new developments being done with C and/or C++ because people think they are the right language for the job, despite their many shortcomings, so in that respect it probably is unfair.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
Many people choose this language because today this knowledge is quite useful because of the legacy codebases and because it is recommended by their friends. Because of this C/C++ is still the "native language" of many and they use this because they know this, not because they think that it is a better choice than x and y because they simple don't know about x and y as an alternative. The ugly truth is that because of the legacy codebase often C/C++ is the best choice, but this doesnt mean that its a best choice because its a nice language.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Today its not the only choice
So what language would you choose today to write a new OS in ?
...cmk
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- John Carmack
|
|
|
|
|
Today there are sh*t loads of OSes, why would you want to write a new one? Anyway, 99% of the ongoing projects is not an operating system so you can pick from lots of other popular languages. In one of my previous posts I mentioned that there is no other similar low level language however by fixing some issues with C could result in a good one to write driver level stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Today there are sh*t loads of OSes,...
None of which answered the question.
|
|
|
|
|
I answered the question, you just forget to quote the end of my post. My posts are not advertising that we have true alternatives in every areas where C/C++ is used. I just mentioned that even in the areas where C/C++ has monopoly better alternatives could be forged with todays knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
No I don't see that answered.
Again if you were writing a OS today which language would you pick to write it in?
|
|
|
|
|
If I had to keep source and/or binary level compatibility then probably C. If I had total freedom then assembly and a new C-like language that has the unambiguous problems of C fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
So you would create a new language to create your new OS.
Have you created a language like C before? And written the support libraries for that new language?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I created a compiled and a dynamic languages as hobby projects but that time without much focus on design and safety. Havent created a full fledged runtime support though. Anyway, if you are about to create a new OS then its not a big deal to put together a C like low level language with the base libraries as a first step. The complexity of the compiler+lib and the OS are not comparable especially if we make use of a tool like gcc or llvm.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Even if something is good, it doesn't mean it becomes widespread
However the reality is that something that is in fact substantially better will become widely used.
And something that isn't will be tossed away.
There are all sorts of failed technology choices. And just a few winners.
If C/C++ were that bad then they would not have continued to retain the market share that they do.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I already answered this in a previous post. C/C++ simply can't be purged because of the huge legacy codebases. Better alternatives exist, the nearest to C++ is the D language. Its simple isn't used because it doesn't have library support that could compare to the legacy codebases for C++.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: think I already answered this in a previous post. C/C++ simply can't be purged
because of the huge legacy codebases.
And as I already said history is SPECIFICALLY full of cases where exactly that has happened.
So obviously it can happen.
pasztorpisti wrote: Its simple isn't used because it doesn't have library support that could compare
to the legacy codebases for C++.
Wrong. It isn't used because developers have not found an advantage to using it.
You do understand that there are many C++ developers and yet C (not C++) continues to be used significantly? Do you understand how C++ was adopted over time to take over much of the work previously done by C++ and yet C by itself continues to be used? The first part of that puts lie to your contention that legacy code preclude new adoptions and the second to your assertion that something that is better in some way must always universally replace the older because there no longer is any value.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: And as I already said history is SPECIFICALLY full of cases where exactly that has happened.
So obviously it can happen.
There is something in your statement. I guess languages are gone when they roots die. C/C++ have currently strong roots (at least Windows/*nix systems).
jschell wrote: Wrong. It isn't used because developers have not found an advantage to using it.
I still think this is partly because of library support and development environment support. Its also a high risk to start a commercial project with something new that can blow. Lets imagine a fatal D compiler crash (without the support of the authors) in the middle of your project! Startups are very slow for these simple reasons.
jschell wrote: You do understand that there are many C++ developers and yet C (not C++) continues to be used significantly? Do you understand how C++ was adopted over time to take over much of the work previously done by C++ and yet C by itself continues to be used? The first part of that puts lie to your contention that legacy code preclude new adoptions and the second to your assertion that something that is better in some way must always universally replace the older because there no longer is any value.
I guess you wanted to write C# when you were talking about the language that took over some of the work of C++. C# can became widespread (relatively quickly) because its supported by a huge rich company. Its library support is good, its IDE is superb. These give the base of one of your reasonings in a previous post: This language gave something. It made development easier and less risky because of the MS support. Noone makes you so nice IDE for D like the one you have for C#, same is true about support. Its not only the "coolness" and efficiency of the language that makes it widespread, money and/or time is also needed.
As I mentioned previously I like the simplicity of C, by modifying it a bit (without keeping the ugly backward compatibility) I think it could be a very nice language for low level coding where C++ and its friends were too high.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: C/C++ have currently strong roots (at least Windows/*nix systems).
Based on that then C/C++ will never cease to exist because there is no expectation that either or both of those OSes will cease to exist.
pasztorpisti wrote: I still think this is partly because of library support and development environment support.
Nope. If that was the case then Java/C# would have taken over.
pasztorpisti wrote: Lets imagine a fatal D compiler crash
I can't speak specifically about D but these days any marginally significant new language will not "crash" when it is released into the public in such a way that it would endanger a product. If it crashes at all then it is probably due to a language construct which can be worked around.
pasztorpisti wrote: I guess you wanted to write C# when you were talking about the language that took over some of the work of C++.
No. I was specifically using the example of when C++ became widely known and C (not C++) was the predominant language. C++ rapidly gained market share. Yet C did then and still does retain a significant market share.
This demonstrates that there is a shift when the market sees a better language come along DESPITE the extensive code base. It also demonstrates that C still finds and audience because it is still used. Thus it STILL provides a benefit that developers can appreciate.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Based on that then C/C++ will never cease to exist because there is no expectation that either or both of those OSes will cease to exist.
Good point. Thats why I think that llvm is a great invention and a beam of hope. Its a nice thing that can glue languages together and its already good enough to compete with gcc that is a monster codebase compared to llvm.
jschell wrote: Nope. If that was the case then Java/C# would have taken over.
Despite the nice design and universality of the packages of these languages they far not cover as many areas as C/C++ libraries and they often don't cover native OS specific staff whose api is also in C. Fortunately they are often well suited for all kinds of enterprise problems where it would be a guilt to choose other languages.
jschell wrote: No. I was specifically using the example of when C++ became widely known and C (not C++) was the predominant language. C++ rapidly gained market share. Yet C did then and still does retain a significant market share.
This demonstrates that there is a shift when the market sees a better language come along DESPITE the extensive code base. It also demonstrates that C still finds and audience because it is still used. Thus it STILL provides a benefit that developers can appreciate.
A lot of factors are involved when you have to decide which language is the nearest to the theoritical domain specific dream language (+libs) to solve the actual problem. If you have to decide for example between C and C++ you are already in trouble because most of the problems are just in between. The libraries are shared between these languages but C++ is a messy language overwhelmed with freature redundancy while C is much simpler but misses some really nice features that make development much efficient and manageable. For this simple reason I always choose C++ because I already know which features to use and which ones to avoid but many C coders don't want to bother with learning the feature mass and the freestyle of C++. Without backward compatiblity it would be so easy to put together an extended-repaired C and cleaned C++, and even a good devenv, but what about library support? Thats the only thing that keeps me back from wasting my time on starting a battle I hardly win. Maybe in my older years as a hobby project when I will have less todos because its definitely fun to mess with languages even if the results go the the dustbin...  With llvm its relatively easy to experiment compared to the older times.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: A lot of factors are involved when you have to decide which language...
I have been programming for 40 years. I have spent many years programming in all of the popular languages. I programmed in C# version 1. I programmed in Java 1.0.4 (before 1.4). I programmed in C++ before there was a ANSI standard. I programmed in C before there was an ANSI standard. I have also programmed in Fortran, Pascal, Perl, assembly (for various targets), SQL (a number of variants), and even created several small languages myself.
I have been working in large systems for more than a decade. I specialize in back end systems and interfacing between sub-systems (many, many legacy systems.)
And I have also spent a great deal of time actually seeking real knowledge about making technical decisions.
So yes I am in fact aware of what factors are involved in making technical decisions.
The conclusion I have come to is that
1. The VAST majority of time technical decisions are made subjectively. There is no objective basis for the decision. The users do it just because they want to.
2. The VAST majority of time it doesn't matter. And for many cases where it it might be considered to matter the problem domain drives the decision (you can't program in C# on a system which does not have libraries, .Net, etc no matter why you think it is a good idea.)
pasztorpisti wrote: Without backward compatiblity it would be so easy to put together an extended-repaired C and cleaned C++, and even a good devenv
I have written small languages including a small C (used in a commercial application.)
I followed the ANSI process for C and C++ extensively when that first occurred.
I followed the path of Java as it attempted to reach a consensus and corporate acceptance of a accepted standard along with following the JCP from inception and following a number of topics in there throughout their lifetime.
I have even written an IDE.
So I know for a fact that it is not "easy".
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: <layer>I have been programming for 40 years. I have spent many years programming in all of the popular languages. I programmed in C# version 1. I programmed in Java 1.0.4 (before 1.4). I programmed in C++ before there was a ANSI standard. I programmed in C before there was an ANSI standard. I have also programmed in Fortran, Pascal, Perl, assembly (for various targets), SQL (a number of variants), and even created several small languages myself.
I have been working in large systems for more than a decade. I specialize in back end systems and interfacing between sub-systems (many, many legacy systems.)
And I have also spent a great deal of time actually seeking real knowledge about making technical decisions.
So yes I am in fact aware of what factors are involved in making technical decisions.
Don't expect me to respect your technical knowledge based on the number of years you spent in the industry. Almost everybody have their areas of expertise here and noone is superman. There are some forum members here I really respect for their clear explanations and opinions despite the fact that I have no clue how old are they and how much have they worked on this and that. This is a discusson about the good and bad traits of C/C++ so please stick to that and don't drive this thread offtopic or into a personal tug of war because I wont participate in that. Please use your experience to list pros and contras about C/C++ thats what the OP is interested in.
jschell wrote: 1. The VAST majority of time technical decisions are made subjectively. There is no objective basis for the decision. The users do it just because they want to.
I wouldn't call a decesion so subjective when it is based on past experience. For example a technical meeting is quite enough to make a sum of everyones knowledge in a given area and to make a list of possible solutions and to list pros and contras for each. I think after this the subjective part of the decesion can considerably decrease. When you have to make decisions in unknown areas then its more subjective but spending 1-2 years in a given area make things more objective because you will know 1-2 definitely good solutions to more and more problems. This is however quite offtopic, its not about C/C++.
jschell wrote: 2. The VAST majority of time it doesn't matter. And for many cases where it it might be considered to matter the problem domain drives the decision (you can't program in C# on a system which does not have libraries, .Net, etc no matter why you think it is a good idea.)
Thats the same what I was talking about when I mentioned windows' backward compatibility. Thats a problem that drives the whole thing. From here we can easily go to an even higher level: yes, most ot the time it doesn't matter what the coder thinks because its not a technical but a business decision, thats why windows keeps the backward compatibility (an important key to its success) and partly thats why coders suffer from C's and C++'s defects. On a higher level money rules.
jschell wrote: I have written small languages including a small C (used in a commercial application.)
And how much time have you spent making the design for it to make it good to solve specific problems like system programming while keeping it well optimizable, easy to static-check, and less prone to certian frequent programming mistakes? Fro example C definitely has some holes to fix, and C++ has even more.
jschell wrote: I followed the ANSI process for C and C++ extensively when that first occurred.
I followed the path of Java as it attempted to reach a consensus and corporate acceptance of a accepted standard along with following the JCP from inception and following a number of topics in there throughout their lifetime.
I have even written an IDE.
So I know for a fact that it is not "easy".
Most coders with some professional calling read some blogs and meet some specifications like C++11. Still many of them are unable to point out certian language defects. This is especially true for C++ beginners who just think its cool when you use all fancy C++ features however this is far not true. Its a sad fact the C++ development process will never kill off serious mistakes form C/C++, they might add nice and useless features to the language but the old mistakes remain forever and new ones are also coming.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Don't expect me to respect your technical knowledge based on the number of years you spent in the industry.
Your knowledge is based specifically on your experience with C++.
My knowledge is based on my experience with multiple languages, including C++, in addition to actively seeking out other sources specifically about technical advantages both in technology and process.
pasztorpisti wrote: This is especially true for C++ beginners who just think its cool when you use all fancy C++ feature
Could be. That however has nothing to do with me. I am not a beginner with C++. Nor am I beginner with other languages. And I know the mistakes that people can make with all of them. And the "nice and useless features" that are added to languages besides C++. Matter of fact I would say that C++ is in fact much more restrained in that. Certainly much more restrained than C#.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Your knowledge is based specifically on your experience with C++.
My knowledge is based on my experience with multiple languages, including C++, in addition to actively seeking out other sources specifically about technical advantages both in technology and process.
Not true, I've worked with every language you mentioned extensively except fortran, but this drives this whole thread far offtopic.
jschell wrote: Could be. That however has nothing to do with me. I am not a beginner with C++. Nor am I beginner with other languages. And I know the mistakes that people can make with all of them. And the "nice and useless features" that are added to languages besides C++. Matter of fact I would say that C++ is in fact much more restrained in that. Certainly much more restrained than C#.
Then we agree that C/C++ has obvious defects that shouldn't exist with todays technology.
|
|
|
|
|
pasztorpisti wrote: Then we agree that C/C++ has obvious defects that shouldn't exist with todays
technology.
I didn't say that.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
