Re: [dev] Suckless remote shell?

From: Alexander S. <alex0player_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:57:12 +0400

2013/11/4 Raimundo Martins <raimundoomartins_AT_gmail.com>:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:11:40 +0300
> "Alexander S." <alex0player_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't want to start a flame, but C isn't exactly state of the art
>> language. I shall agree that Go has problems, but why it would be a
>> disgrace any worse than a living fossil C is?
>
> So being old implies it's bad? That's the kind of thinking that makes
> people try to reinvent something that is already good and then ruin it.
> We could land a man on the moon with 4K ram, but we can't run a
> formatted text editor which complies with most standards without 100MB.
>
> Most e-mail now contains html because someone thought there was a need
> to make them pretty. Now you need a whole graphical interface just to
> read a stupid email from some institution or corporation which thinks
> that they must "modernize". And even then..
>
> Not saying that C is the holy god of all languages and everything
> should be in C. Everything has a purpose.
> Being old doesn't make it bad!
if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power,
it does make it more clunky to use. Being old isn't what makes C old;
the "1001 C Gotcha" lists are about what makes it bad. The ugly hacks
like longjmp and varargs make it bad. C++ would be a much more decent
language if it didn't build on C syntax.
Received on Mon Nov 04 2013 - 17:57:12 CET