11–20 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "an object-oriented C" ... minimalism That's Objective-C in a nutshell. Or was, anyway. The most minimal way to have useful OO on C. Of course, you could make it even simpler if you drop the "must be a superset of C"-requirement.
Thus Swift.
"The language grew up with one of the rewritings of the system and, as such, it became perfect for writing systems. ... It became the perfect language for what it was designed to do." Really? Perfect? Why then are there entire books filled with "C gotchas" or "C traps and pitfalls"? The language is an inconsistent, inelegant, error-prone mess that has left us with decades of serious bugs and security vulnerabilities.…
C was certainly a major step forward at the time, but he does seem oblivious to its flaws (at least in this interview). I was also disappointed to see how he casually trashed C++ at the same time. Not very diplomatic.
"The language grew up with one of the rewritings of the system and, as such, it became perfect for writing systems. ... It became the perfect language for what it was designed to do." Really? Perfect? Why then are there entire books filled with "C gotchas" or "C traps and pitfalls"? The language is an inconsistent, inelegant, error-prone mess that has left us with decades of serious bugs and security vulnerabilities.…
Who here thinks they should have made "an object-oriented C" instead? I was under the impression that a big part of C's success (as a lingua france / lowest common denominator) is its minimalism. It forces only a few concepts on its users.
> "an object-oriented C" ... minimalism That's Objective-C in a nutshell. Or was, anyway. The most minimal way to have useful OO on C. Of course, you could make it even simpler if you drop the "must be a superset of C"-requirement.
Who here thinks they should have made "an object-oriented C" instead? I was under the impression that a big part of C's success (as a lingua france / lowest common denominator) is its minimalism. It forces only a few concepts on its users.
> "an object-oriented C" ... minimalism That's Objective-C in a nutshell. Or was, anyway. The most minimal way to have useful OO on C. Of course, you could make it even simpler if you drop the "must be a superset of C"-requirement.
"The language grew up with one of the rewritings of the system and, as such, it became perfect for writing systems. ... It became the perfect language for what it was designed to do." Really? Perfect? Why then are there entire books filled with "C gotchas" or "C traps and pitfalls"? The language is an inconsistent, inelegant, error-prone mess that has left us with decades of serious bugs and security vulnerabilities.…
"The language grew up with one of the rewritings of the system and, as such, it became perfect for writing systems. ... It became the perfect language for what it was designed to do." Really? Perfect? Why then are there entire books filled with "C gotchas" or "C traps and pitfalls"? The language is an inconsistent, inelegant, error-prone mess that has left us with decades of serious bugs and security vulnerabilities.…
To me, C is honestly one of the most elegant languages there is, right next to Scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, C is honestly one of the most elegant languages there is, right next to Scheme.
I've heard similar opinions before, and would love to see this expanded on... in particular how it can be elegant compared to Scheme, which is by far the most elegant language I know.
I'm not sure if it makes the case for elegance or if I'm misunderstanding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard similar opinions before, and would love to see this expanded on... in particular how it can be elegant compared to Scheme, which is by far the most elegant language I know.
Its simplicity is what I'm attracted to, and I think that's why I think Scheme is elegant too. It has less syntax than comparable languages, fewer keywords, a smaller standard library etc. I'm not sure if it makes the case for elegance or if I'm misunderstanding it.