C is a better language than any language you care to name.

[ZurdoDev]

Everything you said is nonsense and gibberish and yet I perfectly understood you. :) :thumbsup:

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Nemanja Trifunovic]

Joe Woodbury wrote:

Arrays are pointers

Joe Woodbury wrote:

the information which gives the extent of the array - the array dimension." THEY NEVER HAD IT

char *p = "hello"; //pointer - no information about the dimension
char q[] = "hello"; // array - contains information about the dimension

printf("%zu\n", sizeof(p)); // => size of pointer to char -- 4 on x86, 8 on x86-64
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(q)); // => size of char array in memory -- 6 on both

utf8-cpp

[Joe Woodbury]

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

char *p = "hello"; //pointer - no information about the dimension char q[] = "hello"; // array - contains information about the dimension

No the ARRAY does not. The declaration does and thus the precompiler) and sizeof(), but not the array itself. To illustrate, the function:

void _function(const char r[])
{
printf("%u\n", sizeof(r));
}

Will print 4 or 8, depending on the size of a pointer, when you call _function(q);. Added: Moreover, an optimizing compiler will likely pool both strings and use the same pointer for both operations (especially since it's clear they are both const.) Again, the sizeof() is handled by the precompiler, not at runtime.

[Member 4194593]

It may be fast, but not as fast as MASM. Just look at some of the created code in the .cod listing. Many, many, pipeline stalls in code initialization where a push and pop of ebx would free that reg to share loading eax, then ebx, then saving eax, then saving ebx, and this was in optimized code in a high use function in JKDEFRAG. I'll stick with MASM. Dave.

[Karen Mitchelle]

:laugh: yeah. You had. And it makes me laugh even for the second time. Told you, I have weird humor. ;)

Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL. I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64

[Karen Mitchelle]

Ahm, how about this language[^]? :)

Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL. I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64

[Roger Wright]

I'm not sure, but I'll ask my Grammar when she's done baking cookies.

Will Rogers never met me.

[Ravi Bhavnani]

Baking cookies?  I usually just add them to a response. ;P /ravi

My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

[Vivi Chellappa]

'C' was its grade as a a programming language. C++ got a grade of C-- ;P

[PIEBALDconsult]

I agree. Granted that may be because I don't care to name any others.

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Lost User]

Are you a VB Code reviewer? :p

[Rutvik Dave]

Chris, I am afraid you have the wrong information. C is not a language, it's an alphabet.

Remind Me This - Manage, Collaborate and Execute your Project in the Cloud

[Roger Wright]

Rutvik Dave wrote:

C is not a language, it's an alphabet.

Actually, it is just one element in a set called an "alphabet." We also have a 'D' and 24 other members in the set.

Will Rogers never met me.

[Argonia]

So C++ is for two cookies? (cookie++ ; ) ;)

Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true

[Peter Adam]

The vast majority of the software out there is written in C. The vast majority of software out there has crippling flaws, are out of budget and abandoned after tried to use. QED ;P

[Simon ORiordan from UK]

printf("Why is that then?");

[Michael Kingsford Gray]

OK, I'll "bite". "C" is quite the most disastrous so-called "language"[1] ever to become popular. Why? It's total lack of marshalling over record boundaries in memory have cost the globe at least several 100 trillion dollars in viruses, damages, fornicate-ups, interminable repairs/patches, Trojans, injuries, deaths, et cetera. That alone is enough to relegate this incurable abortion of a syntactical nightmare to the bit-bucket, if not Spandau prison. Have at it, you "C" devils. ___________________________ [1] Designed for punch-card use, brevity & conservation of card-space were essential. It thereby became an impenetrably terse & line-break free mess. All calculated to save IBM punched cards. And the syntax is dangerously ambiguous, all over the shop. Don't get me started on the monumentally bone-headed notion that CASE statements should cascade through without a BREAK clause! I mean. What total idiot "thought" that this would be a great idea?

[Lost User]

Always was and always will be. IMHO. :-O

[BobJanova]

Well no, it's a feature. GCd environments eliminate a large group of common bugs, free the developer to think about higher level stuff and not litter their code with memory management cruft, and are in general a Good Thing. It's just that it's a feature that, in certain particular circumstances (particularly when resource usage is tight), isn't helpful.

[bantling]

I don't care so much about the language as everything else. When Java first came out, I finally had a system to write graphical desktop applications on different systems without a ton of BS. Sure people joked about AWT being "write once, debug everywhere", but compared to everything else it was light years ahead. I had libraries that actually worked - on average, I could not compile a C library, so who knows if it did what I wanted or not. I had really simple database access, network access, all the stuff I had wanted and couldn't seem to get. I was like a kid in a candy store. This is the problem with C - not the language, but the lack of something akin to the JSR process, where standard libraries for all sorts of useful things are created. I'd be the first guy to say that Java programmers love to go overboard and make a Rube Goldberg library for everything with 59 layers of abstraction, whereas C programmers tend towards minimal libraries that do just what's needed and no more. But then those C programmers love macros and other things that make the code hard to understand, and they need systems like autoconf and ports trees to actually get their libraries to even compile on different platforms. Six of one, half dozen of the other. So I still love Java for all it provides. The language is overly complicated, and generics are by far the singular worst - and completely unnecessary - feature. When I saw all these new script languages cropping up, I thought, well what about the library for database access, for generating spreadsheets, PDFs, reports, images, etc? I failed to see why I'd want to switch to something shiny and new that is clearly less capable just because the language was simpler. Years later, I see people moving back to Java because they had scalability problems, or problems like this author described with something fundamentally wrong buried deep in the guts of the system. And I still don't see much in the way of database libraries and other things. I have a chuckle when I read about such things. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'm sure there are other languages that have a great set of libraries for useful stuff, I'm sure .Net can likely do a lot of the things I need. But would I be any better off with another language? I don't think so. And I can use other languages through the ScriptManager anyway, while retaining access to all the libraries Java offers.