Re: Programming language vote - results

[Ingemar Ragnemalm <ingemar@lysator.liu.se>]

Kevin Swan wrote:
> 
> Ingemar Ragnemalm (ingemar@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
> 
> : There are plenty of people who use C since it is "cool", but just can't
> : say what is so cool with it. It is cool because Mom can't understand it.
> : No, they won't say that. You can identify that kind of people by the
> : lack of comments in the code. They *want* it that way - and they are
> : many!
> 
> Huh?  What are you talking about?  Do you *really* think that's it?

I am talking about people I have met, and don't want to work with.
I wasn't talking about everybody. Re-read.

> I use
> C, and I don't mind telling you why.  It has nothing to do with how easy or
> hard it is, it has to do with how fast it is.  For small to medium sized
> programs, development time is fairly quick.  In terms of execution speed,
> it simply doesn't get any faster than compiled C code.  It puts you just
> above the assembly level, even permitting you to very easily work in
> assembly, if you want to optimize a tight little loop.

Execution speed is no better or worse than any other high-level language
(although it is queastionable if C is high-level), unless the code
generator and optimizer are poor. I've made comparisons. Have you?

I find C fairly comfortable for small hacks, like UNIX text filters.
Entire applications in C require you to enforce lots of rules that the
language doesn't have, or you get a mess.

> I try extra hard to make my C code EASY to read.  I comment generously.

If you comment generously, there's no reason to take offense when I
complain about people who don't.

I work with people who make clean, straight, readable C-code and
comment it well. I have no problems with them. We regularily interface
Pascal code and C code with great results.

> I find the syntax simple and intuitive, except when you get into pointers
> to pointers to pointers to .... and even then, its logical.

I don't. I find it clumsy, unnecessarily far from english, and many
constructs are little more than primitive macros. When reading other
people's code, I find Pascal-like languages comfortable since they
translate straight to english. With C-style languages, I have to do
one more step. It isn't *hard*, but it is harder than the straight-
forward english-like syntax.

If you think in C, OK, then I guess it is for you.

> Why would people *want* a language that was difficult to work in?  That's
> called "assembly." If you think C is so difficult, why the they choose to
> model Java's syntax after C?  After all, Java was intended to be one of the
> easiest possible languages to learn, with a very shallow learning curve,
> and has been quite successful at it.

Not because it was *good* but because it was *popular*. And Java is
definitely not the easiest to learn. It is just hyped to the level where
everybody feels they *must* learn it. Do you find AWT easy to work with?

> I can't even venture a guess at why you made the comments you did.  It
> almost sounds like you're mad, or resentful at C programmers, but I can't
> imagine why.

I am a bit irritated at C users who refuse to make their code readable,
by using the least readable constructs and refusing to comment the code.
They do exist, and they are many, especially at universities.

Mad, well, perhaps at one thing: how C programmers tend to flame other
high-level languages without knowing what they are talking about. You
know, like "my dad is stronger than your dad".

> Perhaps you're jealous of something, or got a low mark in
> your C course, and are taking it out on the language.

Keep the personal flames out of this. If you need to know, I know C
well, have written much C code, including fairly large applications.
I used Pascal rather little at the university, since all the courses
only used vanilla Pascal. I remember Simula was fascinating for its
OO features (before C++ even existed). I mostly used assembly at home.

I started application programming in C, since that's what people said
was
what I "should" use. When I switched to Pascal, total development time
was cut in half. Yes, it takes a little more time to write the initial
code, but it takes *much* less time to get the bugs out.

My conclusion is that Algol-style syntax suits my programming style
well.

> At any rate, I
> suggest you give it a second look.  Its easy to learn, very fast, and an
> industry standard.

I look at it every day, thank you very much. I just wish I could do
that a bit less, with more time in Pascal, Ada, Simula etc.

/Ingemar