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

DaveX86

D language[^] is better. It combines the simplicity of C and avoids all the kludginess of C++ for the same elegance you see in C#. Plus...no *.H files or #defines !!!! :) Plus garbage collection!

W Balboos GHB

Golden Days!^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

W Balboos GHB

Unfortunately, if you don't know it could never be explained to you.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

MarkTJohnson

Look, a Who tribute band. You better bet your life...

W Balboos GHB

DaveX86 wrote:

Plus garbage collection!

As Is Well Understood and Universally Accepted: "You don't need garbage collection if your code is not garbage!"

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Paul M Watt

And even then, there are 4 sub-languages to C++: - C backward compatibility - C++ - STL - Template meta-programming How you use C++ primarily depends on which one of the sub-languages you are using for that portion of the program.

CPallini

Oh, I'm in love with iC[^].

Veni, vidi, vici.

RaviBee

Who's next? /ravi

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

RaviBee

So what's your definition of "better" (as applied to a programming language)? /ravi

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

W Balboos GHB

HERE^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Joe Woodbury

I agree. C is like a great macro assembler. These days, I prefer C with classes. In other words, mostly C, but using the C++ compiler and RAII and very light weight, thin classes. Above all, it's deterministic. This is the one thing I really dislike about C# and other garbage collected languages. I think it's often abused in C++, where being fancy all too often overrides elegant simplicity.

RaviBee

<sigh> We're all very impressed. /ravi

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

Joe Woodbury

Garbage collection is a flaw, not a feature. It not only sucks resources, it creates a huge unknown. Some of the most difficult problems I've dealt with were with garbage collection (in one recent case, we never did solve the problem--some the most brilliant engineers I know also failed to solve it. Around the same time, we tracked things back to a lesser known bug in the .NET 4.0 garbage collector.)

Nemanja Trifunovic

Chris Maunder wrote:

Discuss.

Arrays decay into pointers.[^] X| Or, for more details: C's Biggest Mistake[^]

utf8-cpp

Joe Woodbury

OriginalGriff wrote:

ut...as the scale increases, it becomes easier to produce better code in an OOPs language, and harder in a non-OOps languages

It should be easier, but I've found it often gets much more difficult. Relatively recently I worked on a massive code base in OOP. There was nothing wrong with any single class or even the design, but as a whole, it was almost impossible to follow the whole thing. However, the sections that were pure procedural code or extremely lightweight classes were very easy to follow.

Joe Woodbury

What else would they do? As the article essentially points out, this is known. It's documented. There is no mystery.

dandy72

No such discussion would be meaningful without first defining "better".

Jeremy Falcon

Joe Woodbury wrote:

However, the sections that were pure procedural code or extremely lightweight classes were very easy to follow.

I gotta agree with you there. OOP is nice, I like it. But on a massive scale it's like it almost adds too much complexity to track what goes where and really does what. Got nothing against OOP, it helps with clean code. But, I can still write a C program in large scale that's just as maintainable.

Jeremy Falcon

Jeremy Falcon

W∴ Balboos wrote:

You don't need garbage collection if your code is not garbage!

Awesome!

Jeremy Falcon

DaveX86

Ah well, so much for my conversational gambit...