Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan_AT_gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:08:01 +0100

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:57:12PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
> if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power,
> it does make it more clunky to use.

True. C's dynamic memory management is proof of that.

> Being old isn't what makes C old;

Yes it does! But it doesn't make C bad.

> the "1001 C Gotcha" lists are about what makes it bad.

Apparently, the existence of such lists is the sign of a good
programming language, because they don't exist for languages that don't
allow enough leeway to do much wrong - so are unusable - or that no-one
uses long enough to find pitfalls - so are evidently unusable.

> The ugly hacks
> like longjmp and varargs make it bad.

longjmp() is kinda hacky, granted (for instance, setjmp() can only be
used portably in a small number of contexts), but varargs? What's bad
bout them?

> C++ would be a much more decent
> language if it didn't build on C syntax.
>

C++ is broken in about every way, and it all comes back to exactly this
point. C is simply a very bad language to base OOP on. But, to be fair,
C++ managed to fuck up magnificently in its own right (Overcomplex
language spec, fucking with C programmers by removing the implicit
conversion from void* to every other pointer and vice versa, lack of GC,
making it hard to use a GC,...)

Ciao,
Markus
Received on Mon Nov 04 2013 - 22:08:01 CET