Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

cl.cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 253 posts

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#11

Post by sidlls »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #10

Here's a good quote: "Unless we can understand the real reasons programmers continue to use C, we risk researchers continuing to solve a set of problems that is incomplete and/or irrelevant, while practitioners continue to use flawed tools." In other words, stop blithely claiming that everyone is stupid for using C/C++. Instead, find out why they use it . Then, if you continue to think that C/C++ needs to be replaced…

You mean the best way isn't berating them for using an "unsafe" language, suggesting they're dinosaurs for not using something newer, or any of a number of other things some do? Who'd have thought.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#12

Post by bluejekyll »

quickben wrote: post #9
pcwalton wrote: post #7

This is another article overanalyzing the success of C, when in fact the reason for the success of C is very simple and obvious: Unix was free and in a lucky position in 1973; Unix got popular; C is the language of Unix; therefore C got popular. There is no inherent benefit in C that, for example, a somewhat modified version of Pascal or Algol wouldn't have inherited. And these kinds of articles always ignore the fac…

You are ignoring the fact that many problems can't be solved in the higher level languages. Also, for some, having the c/c++ level of control is prefered.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into.

C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model.

There are existing applications in C out there, there will be for a long time. Personally I frown upon anyone starting a new project in C or C++, or any unsafe language, especially when you have such a strong language in Rust that exists with a very healthy and growing community around it.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#14

Post by gens »

bluejekyll wrote: post #12
quickben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring the fact that many problems can't be solved in the higher level languages. Also, for some, having the c/c++ level of control is prefered.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

I don't like to be told what programming language i should use. You can scoff all you want, but i will be using C for most of my projects.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#15

Post by planteen »

bluejekyll wrote: post #12
quickben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring the fact that many problems can't be solved in the higher level languages. Also, for some, having the c/c++ level of control is prefered.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

You sure would frown a lot in the embedded world. Rust isn't even a contender for most hard-real time or safety critical projects. Is it even supported by any RTOS today?

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#16

Post by bluejekyll »

gens wrote: post #14
bluejekyll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

I don't like to be told what programming language i should use. You can scoff all you want, but i will be using C for most of my projects.

I don't "tell" people, what language to use. But I do encourage them to look at new languages, especially ones that fit in the same place as one that they like.

I love C. It was my first programming language. I love the syntax, I love the semantics. Years ago, I left it though, because I could deliver higher quality applications with fewer unknown bugs with Java, but I always wanted to find a reason to go back to C. And for some projects I did, and it was important (and in each case I'd run into some error or bug that took weeks to track down).

When I grabbed Rust 2 years ago, it was like getting everything I loved about C paired with everything I love about Java, and none of the stuff I hate in either. Feel free to use whatever language you wish, and I hope schools continue to teach C (though that seems to be dwindling), but I highly encourage people to checkout Rust and see what it's like to not worry about pointer management all the time.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#17

Post by bluejekyll »

planteen wrote: post #15
bluejekyll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

You sure would frown a lot in the embedded world. Rust isn't even a contender for most hard-real time or safety critical projects. Is it even supported by any RTOS today?

Recently I had the pleasure of learning how to develop for this https://www.tockos.org/, which was a lot of fun.

But yes, I can still frown at the C in the embedded world, and bite my tongue when forced to use it. It's only a matter of time IMO before Rust gets onto more of these devices.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#18

Post by blahman2 »

bluejekyll wrote: post #12
quickben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring the fact that many problems can't be solved in the higher level languages. Also, for some, having the c/c++ level of control is prefered.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

i don't know why, but every time someone says stuff like 'such a strong X in Y that exists with a very healthy and growing community around it' i feel the need to puke.

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#19

Post by chubot »

Related: "Safe Systems Software and the Future of Computing by Joe Duffy" at RustConf 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuD7SCqHB7k

I summarized this excellent talk here [1], but one of the main points is that compatibility with existing systems is important for adoption. (They learned that the hard way -- by having their entire project cancelled and almost everything thrown out.) He advocates unit-by-unit rewrites rather than big-bang rewrites, just like Kell does in this conference article.

And compatibility with C in Windows should be easier than it is in the Unix world, because the whole OS is architected around a binary protocol AFAIK -- COM.

My sense is that Rust may not have thought enough about compatibility early in its life. Only later when they ran into adoption problems did they start talking more about compatibility.

Also, it seems Rust competes more with C++ than C, and there seems to be very little attempt to be compatible with C++ (although perhaps that problem is intractable.)

Personally I don't think Rust will be a successful C replacement. It will have some adoption, but the Linux kernel will still be running on bajillions of devices 10 years from now, written in C. And in 20 years, something else will come along to replace either C or Linux, but that thing won't involve Rust.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/6y6gx...

Re: Some Were Meant for C: The Endurance of an Unmanageable Language [pdf]

#20

Post by Jtsummers »

gens wrote: post #14
bluejekyll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't have to be zero sum. We don't need to choose between safe and unsafe. Safety should be a default, with unsafety being something you opt into. C/C++ are both unsafe. Rust is safe by default, and for the cases where you want/need the C/C++ level of access to the system, you can opt into unsafe. I believe Rust is more safe than Go and Java as well, because of the type safety in the threading model. There ar…

I don't like to be told what programming language i should use. You can scoff all you want, but i will be using C for most of my projects.

That's one of the main reasons Ada lost to C and C++ in the DoD world. The other (and more significant) being cost of implementations.

Personally, I prefer my work to be in the language or languages which suit it best rather than making my choice to spite others for a perceived and, usually, non-existent slight.

Post reply on HN