Calling C a legacy language is insane. C is the base of pretty much
every computer software there is. Kernels, system libraries,
compilers, interpreters, runtimes, VMs, etc. are all mostly C code.
Ultimately, all programs on a modern computer run at least some C code
in its process.
What people really need to face is that C is a low-level language.
95% (if not more) of all software projects are better off using
something of a higher-level. It will make development better and
easier. Deployment might be saner too.On 11/29/07, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Hi,
I don’t like to fuel flame wars, since I already
had my share during university days.
But people have to face that C is becoming a "legacy"
language.
[snip]
I personally have developed a phobia for other languages after I fully
learned how to use C properly… I just can’t afford to see C# make a
dialog with just an edit control take up 18 megabytes or RAM.
Simon Roby wrote:> On 11/29/07, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Hi,
I don’t like to fuel flame wars, since I already
had my share during university days.
But people have to face that C is becoming a "legacy"
language.
[snip]
Calling C a legacy language is insane. C is the base of pretty much
every computer software there is. Kernels, system libraries,
compilers, interpreters, runtimes, VMs, etc. are all mostly C code.
Ultimately, all programs on a modern computer run at least some C code
in its process.
What people really need to face is that C is a low-level language.
95% (if not more) of all software projects are better off using
something of a higher-level. It will make development better and
easier. Deployment might be saner too.
I personally have developed a phobia for other languages after I fully
learned how to use C properly… I just can’t afford to see C# make a
dialog with just an edit control take up 18 megabytes or RAM.
isnt C# part of microsoft plans to take over the world as in ‘C is dead! long
live C#’
and as for C++ and SDL, if you want your programs to be truly portable then C
surley is the only option, what with C++ binary conflicts, and C is mostly the
first language in use on most any devices.
EG. i spend ages getting my head round C++, make my game super duper
sweet, then
some dude says ‘i’ll give you three jelly beans any colour you like if you get
that sweet game on my PDA’ and there is no room for loads of bloat lazy person
libraries and systems, and i have to back port (?) to ensure
compatability with
the jelly bean PDA. No bonus jelly beans cos i used C++!
Thanks for the plug! As a matter of fact, Agar-1.3 has been released just
yesterday.
Not that I want to add to the whole C/C++ flamewar, but I hear from a lot
of Agar users who are using C++ and still prefer a GUI library with a C
interface and a compact implementation that will run just about anywhere.
In my opinion, the “size” argument against any C code is bunk. I use
C++ with some projects that rely a lot on linear algebra/operator
overloading, and it is certainly true in that case, but the argument just
doesn’t hold water when it comes to a GUI system. Agar is implemented in
ANSI C, but it has a good object system, it relies heavily on inheritance
and virtual functions, and I cannot see how an equivalent C++ implementation
could offer any significant improvement.On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0100, Marco Faletra wrote:
