And when you depend on multithreading to be unpredictable, it isn't!
-
The simplicity of it for expressing algorithms one has developed is certainly a win, but honestly, I'd rather read it in C# than C if I was going to port it. In practice, I've ported C# stuff to C++ on IoT things several times - everything from a thread synchronization library to a streaming JSON parser with a less than 4kB footprint not tied to document size. C# is just easy to read, IMO but that's just one dev's opinion based on dev's experience. Some of that could have easily been made into C. I don't think wrapping things with extern loses you valuable C++, but exporting C also is kind of like writing new code for "C" so it wasn't something that was on my radar when I responded. Importing code that's compiled in C is another matter. I don't think "C" is evil, so maybe I'm just not fashionable. I'm just seeing less of a point for it these days. The beauty of C++ is you *don't* have to rewrite all that C code. You can use it at the source or binary level in your C++ apps.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
The beauty of C++ is you *don't* have to rewrite all that C code. You can use it at the source or binary level in your C++ apps.
But that was my point, sort of... anything I write that I want to reuse has to be written in C (or, lately, Rust). If I write it in C I can use it from anywhere and any language. If I write in in C++ I can't. If I write in C# I have even fewer opportunities to reuse.
-
Quote:
The beauty of C++ is you *don't* have to rewrite all that C code. You can use it at the source or binary level in your C++ apps.
But that was my point, sort of... anything I write that I want to reuse has to be written in C (or, lately, Rust). If I write it in C I can use it from anywhere and any language. If I write in in C++ I can't. If I write in C# I have even fewer opportunities to reuse.
I think we're talking about two different things because time after time I have a much easier go of porting C# to C than the other way around.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I think we're talking about two different things because time after time I have a much easier go of porting C# to C than the other way around.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
I think we're talking about two different things because time after time I have a much easier go of porting C# to C than the other way around.
You're correct, I am not talking about porting, I am talking about using. Anything you write in C# can only be used inside the .net runtime. If you want to use it elsewhere yo have to port it. With C, and some care, anything written can be used by any other language without porting ... like libpng (usable by all languages without porting, or libzip, or almost anything else in my system (yours too, probably). A good example is SQLite (the most-used and most deployed library in the world according to the statistics from MS): if it were written in C#, or in C++, or in anything else other than C, it would not be as useful as it is because it would not be usable from all languages.
-
Quote:
I think we're talking about two different things because time after time I have a much easier go of porting C# to C than the other way around.
You're correct, I am not talking about porting, I am talking about using. Anything you write in C# can only be used inside the .net runtime. If you want to use it elsewhere yo have to port it. With C, and some care, anything written can be used by any other language without porting ... like libpng (usable by all languages without porting, or libzip, or almost anything else in my system (yours too, probably). A good example is SQLite (the most-used and most deployed library in the world according to the statistics from MS): if it were written in C#, or in C++, or in anything else other than C, it would not be as useful as it is because it would not be usable from all languages.
That's weird because my JSON parser was ported from C# and it doesn't require the .NET runtimes. Same with my threading and synchronization library (also originally written in C#) And the only place you can run C without porting is C++, and even that is not always true. Furthermore, as soon you declare int* foo; Or any "array" of indeterminate size in C you've pretty much nixed any dream of making it work on anything without pointers- "without porting" sorry, but what are you even talking about?
Real programmers use butterflies
-
That's weird because my JSON parser was ported from C# and it doesn't require the .NET runtimes. Same with my threading and synchronization library (also originally written in C#) And the only place you can run C without porting is C++, and even that is not always true. Furthermore, as soon you declare int* foo; Or any "array" of indeterminate size in C you've pretty much nixed any dream of making it work on anything without pointers- "without porting" sorry, but what are you even talking about?
Real programmers use butterflies
Like I said, I'm not talking about porting. Take, for example, SQLite. You can access it from any language without porting.
-
Like I said, I'm not talking about porting. Take, for example, SQLite. You can access it from any language without porting.
As long as you're willing to write a wrapper for any language that isn't C++. If you don't count that. Funny, if I don't count the work involved it takes to do something, how it suddenly doesn't take any work at all.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
As long as you're willing to write a wrapper for any language that isn't C++. If you don't count that. Funny, if I don't count the work involved it takes to do something, how it suddenly doesn't take any work at all.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
As long as you're willing to write a wrapper for any language that isn't C++. If you don't count that.
Generally, since it is usually trivial to write those wrappers, you don't count that (also, I think you mean "C", not "C++"). Porting SQLite so that Python programs can use it would mean re-implementing a few 100s of thousands of lines of code and a decade or so of manpower. Writing the wrappers takes ~2000 and can be done in a weekend for Python. If SQLite was written in C#, your only option would be to rewrite a few 100s of thousands of lines of code, you don't get the option of sitting down in a weekend and writing the interface for it.
Quote:
Funny, if I don't count the work involved it takes to do something, how it suddenly doesn't take any work at all.
It's just a preference I have when I write software - I prefer to write it only once and never have to port because I prefer reuse. You obviously have a different preference. More power to you, but stop pretending that a weekends work writing wrappers is equivalent to a few decades by experts in the field (Dr Hipp is the main author of SQLite, and a recognised database expert). You feel that reuse is useless, fine, stop pretending it doesn't exist.
-
Quote:
As long as you're willing to write a wrapper for any language that isn't C++. If you don't count that.
Generally, since it is usually trivial to write those wrappers, you don't count that (also, I think you mean "C", not "C++"). Porting SQLite so that Python programs can use it would mean re-implementing a few 100s of thousands of lines of code and a decade or so of manpower. Writing the wrappers takes ~2000 and can be done in a weekend for Python. If SQLite was written in C#, your only option would be to rewrite a few 100s of thousands of lines of code, you don't get the option of sitting down in a weekend and writing the interface for it.
Quote:
Funny, if I don't count the work involved it takes to do something, how it suddenly doesn't take any work at all.
It's just a preference I have when I write software - I prefer to write it only once and never have to port because I prefer reuse. You obviously have a different preference. More power to you, but stop pretending that a weekends work writing wrappers is equivalent to a few decades by experts in the field (Dr Hipp is the main author of SQLite, and a recognised database expert). You feel that reuse is useless, fine, stop pretending it doesn't exist.
I didn't say reuse is useless. In fact, all I've maintained is that you're wrong in trying to paint C as write once, use anywhere. It's not. Your code still has to interface with other languages and other languages do not in fact speak "extern 'C'" out of the box unless they are C++ I can write code just easily in C++ that exports the exact same way you do in C. But I could just as easily expose something as COM, using some other programming language, and other languages that spoke COM, including C, could use it. There's nothing magic about C. It's yet another language. It doesn't just interface with everything out there.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I didn't say reuse is useless. In fact, all I've maintained is that you're wrong in trying to paint C as write once, use anywhere. It's not. Your code still has to interface with other languages and other languages do not in fact speak "extern 'C'" out of the box unless they are C++ I can write code just easily in C++ that exports the exact same way you do in C. But I could just as easily expose something as COM, using some other programming language, and other languages that spoke COM, including C, could use it. There's nothing magic about C. It's yet another language. It doesn't just interface with everything out there.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
I didn't say reuse is useless. In fact, all I've maintained is that you're wrong in trying to paint C as write once, use anywhere. It's not.
No, all you're done is say that you can port stuff, which is irrelevant.
Quote:
I can write code just easily in C++ that exports the exact same way you do in C.
But I already said that.
Quote:
I was about to write a top level post pondering the overall utility of writing *new* code in C.
Libraries in C++ can be reused by making C-compatible wrappers around functions, not exposing classes, suppressing exceptions, typedefing structs and prefixing all functions with 'extern "C"'. But then you lose a lot of the value of C++.
Except you thought I was talking about porting :-/
Quote:
But I could just as easily expose something as COM, using some other programming language, and other languages that spoke COM, including C, could use it.
I dunno, last I checked COM didn't work on anythe systems I target. You live in an all-windows world, don't you?
Quote:
There's nothing magic about C. It's yet another language. It doesn't just interface with everything out there.
Maybe, but it interfaces to more systems than any other language. Rust is a new possibility that can somewhat do the same thing, but so far it still supports fewer systems than C. A good example of C being foundational in almost all software is the recent trouble over the cryptography library in Python - the dependency (which was in C) was rewritten in Rust, and that broke multiple distributions that did not run on x86/64.
-
Quote:
I didn't say reuse is useless. In fact, all I've maintained is that you're wrong in trying to paint C as write once, use anywhere. It's not.
No, all you're done is say that you can port stuff, which is irrelevant.
Quote:
I can write code just easily in C++ that exports the exact same way you do in C.
But I already said that.
Quote:
I was about to write a top level post pondering the overall utility of writing *new* code in C.
Libraries in C++ can be reused by making C-compatible wrappers around functions, not exposing classes, suppressing exceptions, typedefing structs and prefixing all functions with 'extern "C"'. But then you lose a lot of the value of C++.
Except you thought I was talking about porting :-/
Quote:
But I could just as easily expose something as COM, using some other programming language, and other languages that spoke COM, including C, could use it.
I dunno, last I checked COM didn't work on anythe systems I target. You live in an all-windows world, don't you?
Quote:
There's nothing magic about C. It's yet another language. It doesn't just interface with everything out there.
Maybe, but it interfaces to more systems than any other language. Rust is a new possibility that can somewhat do the same thing, but so far it still supports fewer systems than C. A good example of C being foundational in almost all software is the recent trouble over the cryptography library in Python - the dependency (which was in C) was rewritten in Rust, and that broke multiple distributions that did not run on x86/64.
I'm pretty sure I know what I said, but just in case I went back and looked at what I wrote, and indeed what I said was what I said. Since you've reduced yourself to lying about me and what I've said, we're done here. I just don't have the stomach to watch someone get so angry they humiliate themselves like that.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I'm pretty sure I know what I said, but just in case I went back and looked at what I wrote, and indeed what I said was what I said. Since you've reduced yourself to lying about me and what I've said, we're done here. I just don't have the stomach to watch someone get so angry they humiliate themselves like that.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
I'm pretty sure I know what I said, but just in case I went back and looked at what I wrote, and indeed what I said was what I said. Since you've reduced yourself to lying about me and what I've said, we're done here. I just don't have the stomach to watch someone get so angry they humiliate themselves like that.
I quoted what you wrote in my replies to you. You had real trouble understanding that I wasn't talking about porting. You spent a good 4 responses about porting, and for each one I kept saying that I wasn't referring to porting. In your second-last post, when the light finally came on for you, you switched from "It is still work to port" to "well, you still need to write wrappers"; that post indicates that the light finally went on. Nevertheless, the fact remains that unless you want to rewrite (sorry, "port") everything when you switch languages, C is a viable choice for **new** development.