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

Why Aren't There C Conferences?

nullprogram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 383 posts

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#151

Post by lispm »

TheDong wrote: post #15
beat wrote: post #2

All programming conferences are C conferences, if you think about it.

I don't see how that follows at all. If you're implying all program languages are derived from C, that's simply false. Lisp is based on the lambda calculus and predates C, as one easy counter-example. If you're implying that all languages run on top of C, that's also false. Theoretical Lisp Machines [0] have been envisioned which do not run C anywhere, and many languages (rust, go, etc) can be built into unikernals t…

> Theoretical Lisp Machines [0] have been envisioned which do not run C anywhere

I have one at home. It's not theoretically, but factually. About 10000 Lisp Machines had been sold between the late 70s and early 90s. Which probably adds to $500+ million in sales - then.

They actually can run C, but that's usually optional.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#152

Post by marcosdumay »

DonHopkins wrote: post #123
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's willing to shell out for it.

I always wanted to attend a "yes" conference. y y y y y .... I heard they were a lot of arguments at the Gnu "cat" conference.

My computer has "true" version 8.26, and I miss some place I can go to discover what's new from version 8.25.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#153

Post by [deleted] »

skykooler wrote: post #116
beat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me to a compiler or interpreter, any of them, that isn't either written in C or written in something that was written in C. And of course, whatever you play with, it's running on an operating system written in C. If programming is turtles all the way down, C is the bottom turtle, standing on the solid ground of Von Neumann architecture. The point is, C is utterly pervasive. Everything that we think is different…

Go is written in Go, which is why you need it installed in the first place before you can run the go compiler.

[deleted]

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#154

Post by lispm »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #92
phoe-krk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CLOC tells me there's 28391 lines of C and 426525 lines of Lisp in there. Also remember that Lisp has, on average, higher code density than C thanks to advanced macro usage. Pointing to C code in that repository and saying SBCL is implemented in C is like pointing to https://github.com/sbcl/sbcl/blob/master/binary-distribution... and saying that SBCL is implemented in Bash.

The runtime is written in C. That's the important bit. Just because the compiler, standard library, etc, isn't - doesn't mean it's not based on C. You cannot use SBCL without a C compiler.

Other implementations have parts of the runtime written in Assembler, Lisp, Java, ...

A bunch of languages can be used to write a Lisp runtime.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#155

Post by dclowd9901 »

badpun wrote: post #113
crispyambulance wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, why would anyone want to waste time lifting their nose briefly from their employer's grindstone to get exposed to new colleagues, new ideas, and new business opportunities?

They are a waste of your employer’s time. For you they’re great, you’re still getting paid, but don’t have to work.

Quite a myopic view. My employer is pushing hard right now to sponsor lots of meetups and conferences to reach new (read: diverse) recruits.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#156

Post by [deleted] »

oneplane wrote: post #6
ndesaulniers wrote: post #3

Good question, but a majority of this post is links to cppcon videos. (I do appreciate the shoutout to LLVM). I think the C community: * Should have a C conference. * Actually be more aggressive in adding features to the language. For example, there are some really great GNU C extensions that are long overdue be added to the standard. Compiler vendors should work with the standards bodies more, rather than shipping l…

The main problem with that is there is no single C community. Imagine trying to get ANSI C, Win32 C, GNU C and every flavor of embedded C together.

[deleted]

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#157

Post by saagarjha »

badpun wrote: post #113
crispyambulance wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, why would anyone want to waste time lifting their nose briefly from their employer's grindstone to get exposed to new colleagues, new ideas, and new business opportunities?

They are a waste of your employer’s time. For you they’re great, you’re still getting paid, but don’t have to work.

If you’re looking at conferences from the point of view of “a way to improve programming skills” it really isn’t. It’s the equivalent of workforce training in other fields.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#158

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

lispm wrote: post #154
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The runtime is written in C. That's the important bit. Just because the compiler, standard library, etc, isn't - doesn't mean it's not based on C. You cannot use SBCL without a C compiler.

Other implementations have parts of the runtime written in Assembler, Lisp, Java, ... A bunch of languages can be used to write a Lisp runtime.

The ones based on Java run on the JVM, which is always written in C :) The ones written in Lisp, well, at the bottom it's C again. I haven't seen a popular lisp yet with a meaningful amount of assembly in lieu of C.

Re: Why Aren't There C Conferences?

#160

Post by Conan_Kudo »

ddevault wrote: post #14
ndesaulniers wrote: post #3

Good question, but a majority of this post is links to cppcon videos. (I do appreciate the shoutout to LLVM). I think the C community: * Should have a C conference. * Actually be more aggressive in adding features to the language. For example, there are some really great GNU C extensions that are long overdue be added to the standard. Compiler vendors should work with the standards bodies more, rather than shipping l…

I strongly disagree. C should is adding langauge features at a pace other languages could stand to emulate. C is stable, trusted, and supported everywhere for this very reason. Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so.

The problem with not allowing language extensions to be used is that it promotes the staleness of the language.

Just as human languages evolve as people use and adjust it, programming languages evolve as people start trying to change it to better suit their needs.

The difference with human languages and programming ones is that there's a relatively easy process to get everyone in sync on how it changes for programming languages. :)

I also agree with the grandparent comment that more features should be specified and incorporated into the C standard. The fact they exist and are in wide use says a lot all by itself.

Post reply on HN