Is C as bad as everyone says C++ is?

[Wybiral]

it's like your saying c++ is not powrful but in some areas its very good. I don't understand your logic.

No, it's like he's arguing against your statement of C and C++ being the most powerful, especially since we have not defined "power".

Is power a matter of performance? You can hand-craft some assembly to perform better than C++, so is assembly more powerful? I've seen brain**** compilers that reach some ridiculous speeds too, we should probably regard brain**** as one of the most powerful as well.

Are they more powerful for multi-threading or multi-process development?

Is power expressibility? Readability? The ability to type less and do more?

Are C and C++ more powerful in a domain like web applications? Should we write C->to->JavaScript compilers so we can write browser-end code in C as well?

Perhaps you mean power in terms of text processing and string handling... I bet C is more powerful than Perl or Python in that domain, eh?

What do you mean by "power"?

[pp.]

why is that the word powerful bothers you so much? having control over how processor runs is a powerful side of C.

As others have said, the only 'problem' with the word 'powerful' lies with the definition.

If having control over how a processor runs makes a language powerful, Assembly is the most powerful language there is, unless you gain access to the processor's micro code.

[CptPicard]

No, it's like he's arguing against your statement of C and C++ being the most powerful, especially since we have not defined "power".

In the interests of intellectual integrity, he really didn't make the claim of C++ being "the most powerful".

Then again it is not the point at all -- essentially the position I am defending here is the idea that the objective meanings of "power" that I am mostly interested in do not have that much to do with runtime speed -- you can always increase runtime speed by buying a bigger machine, and it has nothing to do with the language's "nature" from programmer's perspective. On the other hand if we're going to turn the issue of "power" into a totally subjective one that always depends completely on application domain, the discussion itself becomes rather meaningless.

So while C++ is being "practically" used for some specific reasons, just simple momentum being one of them, it doesn't invalidate any of the actual complaints about the language being remarkably full of pitfalls and difficulty you have to learn to code around and live with.

[cb951303]

No, it's like he's arguing against your statement of C and C++ being the most powerful, especially since we have not defined "power".

Is power a matter of performance? You can hand-craft some assembly to perform better than C++, so is assembly more powerful? I've seen brain**** compilers that reach some ridiculous speeds too, we should probably regard brain**** as one of the most powerful as well.

Are they more powerful for multi-threading or multi-process development?

Is power expressibility? Readability? The ability to type less and do more?

Are C and C++ more powerful in a domain like web applications? Should we write C->to->JavaScript compilers so we can write browser-end code in C as well?

Perhaps you mean power in terms of text processing and string handling... I bet C is more powerful than Perl or Python in that domain, eh?

What do you mean by "power"?

I read only the first sentence of your post since it show that you didn't read any of mine. I didn't say anything about C/C++ bein 'most' powerful

read first than comment

[cb951303]

It's because 'powerful' can be defined in more ways than one. When you say 'powerful', you seem to imply that the more lower-level access you have to the machine, the more 'powerful' you become. However, when experienced programmers (with perhaps degrees or jobs - those experienced by age) speak of power, they usually mean in terms of the most efficient way to get things done.

I imply that? where? efficient is not a good choice of word here since C is an efficient language.

Hacking in C/C++ does not necessarily make you a more 'powerful' programmer. C is used where low-level access is required, like in our precious kernel. C++ is used in large projects, where abstract methods are required to keep the programmers sane, and also because it was the first of it's paradigm to gain popularity in the 80's and 90's. Because of the (very) large amount of people who jumped on that bandwagon, it's still used a lot today, though less and less.

I also didn't say that it will make me a more powerful programmer. Jesus, You guys need to learn how to read. I feel like arguing with fanatics here.
Also C++ is definitely not the first of its paradigm.

[pp.]

efficient is not a good choice of word here since C is an efficient language....
You guys need to learn how to read.

You might assist the process of reading your posts correctly by supplying a definition or two.

Please define 'powerful' and 'efficient' as applied by you to programming languages.

'Programming language A is more powerful than programming language B if programming language A (...) programming language B'

'Programming language A is more efficient than programming language B if programming language A (...) programming language B'.

Once you have done so, we might attempt to order a selection of programming languages by some scalars expressing 'power' and/or 'effiency' of those languages.

Until then, we might as well discuss the taste, color or weight of those languages.

[cb951303]

As I said, Sturgeon's law says 90% of developers are crap, so therefore, they're wrong and satisfied to just use whatever is handed to them (this is valid in somewhat different sense for Java and C#). If they were right, we could just agree to use C++ for all eternity and forget about all our further language development efforts

it's just one argument not a real law. you can't use as a fact. Frankly I found that statement quite amusing.

The saddest part is that they're spending their intellectual resources in misguided attempts to manage C++ instead of managing the problem (or maybe writing a language from scratch with all the cruft and baggage thrown out).

I would like to hear more about that. Some examples maybe?

No, I am not saying that C++ is "very good" at anything -- being a mediocre middle ground solution in a lot of stuff is in some sense why it's popular and why it's not "great". It seems to somehow get the job done in OOP modelling sense and gives decent performance, but that still doesn't make it forgivable that you need to master endless amounts of C++-specific minutiae not to trip up with the language.

C++ has its disadvantages but its nothing dramatical as you describe it. Again no language is perfect. It doesn't mean they are not powerful. Also since when mastering *anything* become unnecessary or bad practice?

It is interesting how criticism is to be taken as "bashing" when there is an urgent need to ignore the criticism.

not true. It's just a bad choice of word by me. English is not my mother language. I was implying that your complaints about C++ are all superficial. Despite all the people, professionals and gurus using C++ in many projects, you find in yourself the right to call them crap (well at least 90% of them). I don't think you have enough knowledge to conclude that.

Well, Lisp does come close...

then use it by any means

[Sinkingships7]

I imply that? where? efficient is not a good choice of word here since C is an efficient language.

You say it right here:

C and C++ are two of the most powerful programming languages that exists today.

You claim that C is an 'efficient' language. It is efficient ONLY where it's practical application is. It is not powerful, as you say. It does what it was designed for fairly well, which is providing a further layer of abstraction to assembly to allow programmers to have low-level access to the machine for dealing with drivers or kernels: where it is needed.

Also C++ is definitely not the first of its paradigm.

Read again.

[...] and also because it was the first of it's paradigm to gain popularity [...]

[Wybiral]

I read only the first sentence of your post since it show that you didn't read any of mine. I didn't say anything about C/C++ bein 'most' powerful

read first than comment

I did read your reply, and you said:

C and C++ are two of the most powerful programming languages that exists today. So I wouldn't believe what they say about C++.

So you didn't say that they were "the [only] most powerful", but you said "two of the most powerful" which is what my reply was about, but I guess not reading my reply is a nice way to avoid having to explain yourself.

[cb951303]

You might assist the process of reading your posts correctly by supplying a definition or two.

Please define 'powerful' and 'efficient' as applied by you to programming languages.

'Programming language A is more powerful than programming language B if programming language A (...) programming language B'

'Programming language A is more efficient than programming language B if programming language A (...) programming language B'.

Once you have done so, we might attempt to order a selection of programming languages by some scalars expressing 'power' and/or 'effiency' of those languages.

Until then, we might as well discuss the taste, color or weight of those languages.

pp when are you going to read my first post? My statement was

C and C++ are two of the most powerful programming languages that exists today

I didn't compare C/C++ to any language. got it? That's why I don't need to define it. Or should I define every adjective that use to you?

The word efficient is brought by someone else. I was responding him.

Realy! Start reading.