Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #54232 > unrolled thread

"Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-10 18:17 -0600
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2014-12-10 22:55 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 09:01 +0000
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 02:41 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 11:08 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-16 13:06 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 13:14 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-16 07:29 -0800
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-16 16:23 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 17:23 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-16 18:06 -0800
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 07:35 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 16:01 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-18 10:30 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-20 18:45 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 11:58 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-12-12 11:15 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 04:11 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-11 17:36 +0100
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:44 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-11 17:53 +0100
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 09:57 -0800
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-11 15:21 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-12 11:14 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-11 05:06 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 05:48 -0800
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:17 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-13 10:22 +0000
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 10:34 +0000
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-13 14:04 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-13 07:42 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-13 20:52 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 00:23 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 12:07 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 13:20 +0000
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 22:43 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 01:33 +0000
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 02:39 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 03:16 -0800
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 17:24 +0000
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 18:01 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:25 -0800
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 08:46 -0500
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 05:59 -0800
                                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-17 08:21 -0500
                                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 07:27 -0800
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 14:29 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 08:51 -0500
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 14:30 +0000
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:02 -0800
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-14 00:36 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 01:22 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-14 07:35 +0000
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-12-14 04:39 -0800
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-14 08:14 -0500
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 08:02 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 04:52 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-13 06:39 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-13 15:57 -0600
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 09:51 -0600
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-15 20:30 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-15 21:29 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 21:23 -0600
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-16 04:14 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 09:11 -0600
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 13:13 -0600
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 19:27 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 16:11 -0600
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-16 14:39 -0800
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 18:25 -0600
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 05:13 -0800
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:28 -0800
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-11 17:29 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-11 17:59 +0000
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-11 19:05 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:37 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:49 -0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#54592

On Mon, 2014-12-15, BGB wrote:
...
> and, what can I look forward to if I go for C++ and all its features?... 
> compile times which are *SLOOOOW*.

No.  I use modern compilers on a decade old hardware.  Compile times
for C++ are ok, more or less the same as for C.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54605

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-15, BGB wrote:
> ...
>> and, what can I look forward to if I go for C++ and all its features?... 
>> compile times which are *SLOOOOW*.
 
> No.  I use modern compilers on a decade old hardware.  Compile times
> for C++ are ok, more or less the same as for C.

OK, but how about for two or three decade old hardware?

(There is a C compiler for the PDP-10.)

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54630

On 12/15/2014 2:30 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-15, BGB wrote:
> ...
>> and, what can I look forward to if I go for C++ and all its features?...
>> compile times which are *SLOOOOW*.
>
> No.  I use modern compilers on a decade old hardware.  Compile times
> for C++ are ok, more or less the same as for C.
>

I am using an AMD K10 at 3.4GHz as my main PC, but still often 
experience slow compilation times (RAM is 16GB of PC3-1050, OS is 
Windows 7).

for C, compilation times are more reasonable (say, 100kLOC library in 
around 18 seconds, or a full rebuild of a 1MLOC plain C codebase in 
around 3 minutes).


similar sized masses of C++ tend to have considerably longer compile 
times (10s of minutes or more). it is ok for C-like code, but compile 
times go to crap if a lot of C++ features are used.

casually recompiling things like Doom3 or LLVM don't exactly give a 
whole lot of hope or optimism for C++'s compile times.


compile times are also pretty slow on a 1.7GHz PC (using an Athlon XP 
with 1GB of RAM installed and running Windows XP), and also on a 2.1GHz 
PC (2.1 GHz Pentium Dual-Core with 4GB of RAM and running Windows 7, but 
came with Vista).


meanwhile, compile times on lower-stat hardware (such as a 700MHz 
Raspberry Pi) border on absurd...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54631

On 2014-12-16, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
> meanwhile, compile times on lower-stat hardware (such as a 700MHz 
> Raspberry Pi) border on absurd...

Those times didn't suck so badly some 25 years ago. GCC produced
reasonable code for the machines it ran on, reasonably fast.
700 Mhz was a pie in the sky dream.

I don't see any noticeable decrease in compile time with -march=i386
-mtune=i386, so you can't blame it on the instruction scheduling for
modern pipelines.

I doubt that the code generation for the 386 is significantly better, if at
all, than what GCC spat out in 1993.

GCC does not anywhere near represent how fast a compiler should be on modern
hardware.

The expected behavior is that object files should be spewing out as fast as
your terminal can scroll, at -O2 optimization.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54705

On 12/15/2014 10:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2014-12-16, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> meanwhile, compile times on lower-stat hardware (such as a 700MHz
>> Raspberry Pi) border on absurd...
>
> Those times didn't suck so badly some 25 years ago. GCC produced
> reasonable code for the machines it ran on, reasonably fast.
> 700 Mhz was a pie in the sky dream.
>
> I don't see any noticeable decrease in compile time with -march=i386
> -mtune=i386, so you can't blame it on the instruction scheduling for
> modern pipelines.
>
> I doubt that the code generation for the 386 is significantly better, if at
> all, than what GCC spat out in 1993.
>
> GCC does not anywhere near represent how fast a compiler should be on modern
> hardware.
>
> The expected behavior is that object files should be spewing out as fast as
> your terminal can scroll, at -O2 optimization.
>

yeah, dunno...

it is almost like the compilers have gotten slower at a rate 
proportional to the increase in hardware speeds.

like, back in the 90s, if I had been seeing several hour compile times 
and similar, I probably would have been a lot more tempted to jump ship 
to a language with a faster compiler.

though, yes, it depends a lot on the compiler, and faster compilers exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54735

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:11:26 -0600, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/15/2014 10:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2014-12-16, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> meanwhile, compile times on lower-stat hardware (such as a 700MHz
>>> Raspberry Pi) border on absurd...
>>
>> Those times didn't suck so badly some 25 years ago. GCC produced
>> reasonable code for the machines it ran on, reasonably fast.
>> 700 Mhz was a pie in the sky dream.
>>
>> I don't see any noticeable decrease in compile time with -march=i386
>> -mtune=i386, so you can't blame it on the instruction scheduling for
>> modern pipelines.
>>
>> I doubt that the code generation for the 386 is significantly better, if at
>> all, than what GCC spat out in 1993.
>>
>> GCC does not anywhere near represent how fast a compiler should be on modern
>> hardware.
>>
>> The expected behavior is that object files should be spewing out as fast as
>> your terminal can scroll, at -O2 optimization.
>>
>
>yeah, dunno...
>
>it is almost like the compilers have gotten slower at a rate 
>proportional to the increase in hardware speeds.
>
>like, back in the 90s, if I had been seeing several hour compile times 
>and similar, I probably would have been a lot more tempted to jump ship 
>to a language with a faster compiler.
>
>though, yes, it depends a lot on the compiler, and faster compilers exist.


One problem (at least for C and C++) is that the size of headers
included in many has grown substantially.  There are several
megabytes, and several 100 KLOCs, of stuff spread over dozens of files
to parse if you include windows.h, for example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54737

On 16/12/2014 19:13, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:11:26 -0600, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> it is almost like the compilers have gotten slower at a rate
>> proportional to the increase in hardware speeds.
>>
>> like, back in the 90s, if I had been seeing several hour compile times
>> and similar, I probably would have been a lot more tempted to jump ship
>> to a language with a faster compiler.
>>
>> though, yes, it depends a lot on the compiler, and faster compilers exist.
>
>
> One problem (at least for C and C++) is that the size of headers
> included in many has grown substantially.  There are several
> megabytes, and several 100 KLOCs, of stuff spread over dozens of files
> to parse if you include windows.h, for example.

These are compilation times for a hello-world program under Windows:

         windows.h  console
gcc     0.5        0.3    seconds
g++     0.9        0.2

So windows.h isn't directly the reason for compile times of several minutes.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54761

On 12/16/2014 1:27 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 16/12/2014 19:13, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:11:26 -0600, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> it is almost like the compilers have gotten slower at a rate
>>> proportional to the increase in hardware speeds.
>>>
>>> like, back in the 90s, if I had been seeing several hour compile times
>>> and similar, I probably would have been a lot more tempted to jump ship
>>> to a language with a faster compiler.
>>>
>>> though, yes, it depends a lot on the compiler, and faster compilers
>>> exist.
>>
>>
>> One problem (at least for C and C++) is that the size of headers
>> included in many has grown substantially.  There are several
>> megabytes, and several 100 KLOCs, of stuff spread over dozens of files
>> to parse if you include windows.h, for example.
>
> These are compilation times for a hello-world program under Windows:
>
>          windows.h  console
> gcc     0.5        0.3    seconds
> g++     0.9        0.2
>
> So windows.h isn't directly the reason for compile times of several
> minutes.
>

yeah, a lot of my stuff generally skips "windows.h" and similar unless 
it is directly relevant to the code being compiled (rarely), since, 
granted, it does put a bit of hurt on the compile times.

typical headers included (by most code):
stdio.h
stdlib.h
string.h

and, often included when relevant:
math.h
stdarg.h
time.h

so, yeah, unless maybe there is a crapload of code being pulled in by 
the standard headers, dunno...

for larger projects, there can get to be a lot of header contents, but 
this should be less of an issue when compiling standalone libraries.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54765

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:15:25 PM UTC, BGB wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 1:27 PM, BartC wrote:
>
> typical headers included (by most code):
> stdio.h
> stdlib.h
> string.h
> 
Your code will benefit if you get out of the habit of routinely
#including stdio.h.
Only a few files which actually do IO should be including stdio.h,
everything else should be bit shuffling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54790

On 12/16/2014 4:39 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:15:25 PM UTC, BGB wrote:
>> On 12/16/2014 1:27 PM, BartC wrote:
>>
>> typical headers included (by most code):
>> stdio.h
>> stdlib.h
>> string.h
>>
> Your code will benefit if you get out of the habit of routinely
> #including stdio.h.
> Only a few files which actually do IO should be including stdio.h,
> everything else should be bit shuffling.
>

ok.

part of it I suspect is that a lot of code ends up using debug printf 
calls and similar... but, yeah, don't really need debug printf's in 
cases internal logging is being done, and don't really need stdio if no 
other IO or sprintf calls or similar is going on...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54686

JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:

> Object oriented languages (or extensions to C) don't interest me as
> much as functional languages with type systems, designed to exploit
> the Curry-Howard isomorphism.  See, e.g., the Conclusions section of
> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/frege/frege.pdf (and
> note that it was written in 2000).
>
> Nothing I've ever programmed comes anywhere close to utilizing
> these kinds of techniques.  But I can't help wondering if I'm like
> a Pony Express rider coming across his first railroad.  If stuff
> like that is what the 21st century is about, then procedural
> languages like C probably won't be very relevant anymore.

Speaking from my own experience, there is something important
there.  I don't think any of the "more advanced" languages will
supplant C, because in one way or another they all have big
footprints, and there are cases where having a small footprint is
not just nice but essential, eg, running on bare metal.  Having
said that, I do recommend you take a look at a modern functional
language that has type inference, strong-and-I'm-not-kidding type
checking, and parametric polymorphism (eg, Haskell or one of the
several ML offshoots).  Be prepared for it to take a while for
the new ideas to sink in - of course some you will get right
away, but others take some time to appreciate (or at least they
did for me).  There is something really amazing about tossing
higher-order functions around, not amazing in the sense of fun
but amazing in the sense of having access to a new and really
powerful tool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54255

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"

Yes.  We are already in the 21st Century, and C is today relevant.
Its compilers are receiving continuous updates and development, and
countless developers are using C in their projects.

C has its place.  It is not often found in business apps and they
higher-end money makers.  But at the low levels, the foundations of
those higher-level projects, it is exceedingly required, a descriptive
language to bring the machine to man, and man to the machine.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54269

On 12/11/14 1:17 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>     http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
>
> "Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie
> devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major
> revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written
> in C, along with most of Linux."
>
> Lynn
It is best language for writing libraries,because C is easily interfaced 
with other languages (and supported).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54288

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:17:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>     http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
> 
> "Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie
> devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major
> revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written
> in C, along with most of Linux."

	One might just as well wonder if the wheel is still relevant in 
the 21st century. Some inventions seem to remain relevant no matter how 
long it has been since they were conmjured up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54289

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:59:52 +0000 (UTC)
Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:17:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 
> > "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
> >     http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
> > 
> > "Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie
> > devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major
> > revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were
> > written in C, along with most of Linux."
> 
> 	One might just as well wonder if the wheel is still relevant
> in the 21st century. Some inventions seem to remain relevant no
> matter how long it has been since they were conmjured up.
> 
> 

+1 ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54350

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:17:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>"Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>    http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
>
>"Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major 
>revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written in C, along with most of Linux."
>
>Lynn

the importance is about library function too as "printf()" and
malloc()/ free()
the use of the stack in tmp varibles
use minimalist form for indicate operators "+=" ++ etc
good indentation of code
and the influence to other languages 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54584

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:17:38 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>     http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
> 
> "Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major 
> revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written in C, along with most of Linux."
> 
> Lynn

At some point you have to go native; whether it's for performance reasons,
or to implement a new VM, or to directly manipulate hardware, you need to
code at a conceptually low level, close to the hardware.  

C was designed in part to implement UNIX, so it provides some convenient
low-level abstractions (such as pointers) that make low-level coding
easy (easier than writing assembly, anway).  

So, yeah, it's going to stay relevant in a number of domains.  Maybe not
for Web development or general applications programming (there are better
tools for those domains), but for system-level programming, yeah, it's
going to be relevant for quite a while.  

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web