371–380 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean: $ echo "$PARENT" | sed 's_r/x_r$/_' P.S. It's a bit hard to believe I misread that... thanks.
My sed knowledge isn't very advance. What is your invocation supposed to do?
So the regex just means replace "r/x" with "r$/".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he meant: $ whoami | sed 's/hr$/x/'
I think you mean: $ echo "$PARENT" | sed 's_r/x_r$/_' P.S. It's a bit hard to believe I misread that... thanks.
$ echo john regehr | sed s/hr/xx/
john regexx
$ ^r/x^r$/^
echo john regehr | sed s/hr$/x/
john regex
I'm a language design buff, so you might be able to guess my biases: FP is good, OO is bad, every language should have higher-order functions, yadda yadda. I finally decided to get a deeper knowledge of C, something I've been saying I "should do" for years. I'm learning it via Zed Shaw's Learn C The Hard Way and I'm very impressed by the language. It does what it does very well. I wouldn't use it for a complex web ap…
I'd be interested to hear what you think of D.
What's its niche? C's major win is the ability to explicitly manage (and, thereby, reason about) memory. Garbage collection is great but I tend to associate it with high-level languages like Python, Haskell and Clojure.
I'm sure there is a niche for GC'd mid-level languages (e.g. Go) but I'm not yet experienced with them enough to know what it is.
I'm a language design buff, so you might be able to guess my biases: FP is good, OO is bad, every language should have higher-order functions, yadda yadda. I finally decided to get a deeper knowledge of C, something I've been saying I "should do" for years. I'm learning it via Zed Shaw's Learn C The Hard Way and I'm very impressed by the language. It does what it does very well. I wouldn't use it for a complex web ap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it is still the most practical language" Only in extremely limited contexts: low-level code for operating systems that happened to have been written in C. Otherwise, there is a better language for pretty much every use-case of C.
low-level code for operating systems that happened to have been written in C You say that like it is an accident that just about every major OS today is written in C or C/C++
Is there some technical feature of C or C++ that makes those languages good for writing OSes, or that made OSes written in those languages overwhelmingly successful? You might argue that the simplicity of a C compiler made Unix successful because it helped with portability, but C is by no means unique in this regard -- a Lisp compiler can be equally simple, and can be used to bootstrap a more sophisticated compiler. Really, Unix won because the only real competition Unix vendors faced in the minicomputer and workstation market came from other Unix vendors; C was riding on the coattails of Unix. One would be hard-pressed to argue that Windows won because C++ is a great language, especially considering how Windows was plagued with bugs and security problems during its rise to prominence in the 90s (many of which resulted from bad pointer mechanics, which is what happens when you use a language that requires you to juggle pointers).
I'm a language design buff, so you might be able to guess my biases: FP is good, OO is bad, every language should have higher-order functions, yadda yadda. I finally decided to get a deeper knowledge of C, something I've been saying I "should do" for years. I'm learning it via Zed Shaw's Learn C The Hard Way and I'm very impressed by the language. It does what it does very well. I wouldn't use it for a complex web ap…
What do you think about Factor?
For language beauty, the ones with simple syntax (e.g. Lisps, Forth, q) win. However, for a large production system, I'd be more inclined to use something with static typing.
Static typing falls down in a different way with large systems-- compile speed-- but if the thing's not being changed on a regular basis, that's not a huge issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Burroughs was a stack machine, but that's only the beginning. Look at how it handled addressing hunks of memory. Bounds checked memory block references were a hardware type, and they were the only way to get a reference to a block of memory. So basically, null pointers didn't exist at the hardware level, nor out of bounds writes to arrays or strings. Similarly, code and data were distinguished in memory (by high…
>C defines a virtual machine consisting of a single, contiguous block of memory with consecutive addresses, and a single core processor that reads and executes a single instruction at a time. This is not true of today's processors, thanks to multicores, multiple pipelines, and layers of cache. Which is true, for a rather stretched definition of "virtual machine"(which falls apart at the kernel level, because it's pre…
The C language is wonderful is because you can look Quake I, II, III, and instantly see the intent. In C++ you can't.
Quake3 is written in C++
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> C is the language that doesn't force any preconceived notions about how the world should work onto you Some preconceived notions forced upon you by C, off the top of my head: - problems should be solved by describing a linear sequence of steps (as opposed to logic/declarative programming) - a variable can have different values at different times in the execution of a program (in contrast to standard mathematical co…
problems should be solved by describing a linear sequence of steps (as opposed to logic/declarative programming) Linear sequences of steps processing data arrayed in some linear fashion or others is what computers do. It is certainly what a single core does. So you would rather have someone else write a C program for you that abstracts it away and calls it a new way to program? That's k, just know that you'll still h…
No, it's what some computers do. It's almost certainly not what the computer you are using currently does. It's quite possible it's not what any computer you've ever used does.
> So you would rather ...
I'm not expressing a preference. If you think I was, you've misunderstood my comment. I'm making observations, not judgements. I'm not anti-C, it's a fine language for many things; however I do think that the articles author is not being as even-handed as he claims when it comes to some of the short-comings of C.
> Your problem is nomenclature?
Again, I'm not making a judgement. C exists in a paradigm where writing
x = 3
x = 4
>>there is random access storage of information (with constant time access and update)
>Again, that's just how "the world" works.
That's absolutely not how "the world" works. Again, you've probably never even used a computer where it was true.
> dissing C is just shitting where you eat. The only reasons I can imagine for it are jealousy or ignorance.
I don't think I've made any statement anywhere in this discussion that's "dissing C".