High Level Programming Languages

When is it appropriate to use a high level programming language? Personally, I always feel guilty when using anything except C.

>>38
I'll have you know my OS was written in LISP.

>>39
I thought long and hard about replying to this seriously, but the post is utterly schizophrenic.

What do you mean C lacks interfaces to machine features? It doesn't, and if it does that's fine too because it was never supposed to have them! How would your language do it, huh? No, libraries don't count because they would prove me wrong. C is truly a great language despite lacking basic low-level and high-level features.

Ridiculous.

>>42
You're ridicilous. You're being sarcastic on my behalf as an attempt to make a point of your own. Your satire is wrong and you're not making a point perhaps other than that you don't understand computing.

You could've asked for clarifications but you didn't. I hope you understand that you're not eligible for discussions here.

>>43
What is there to clarify? You are barely saying anything and what little you say contradicts itself or is straight-up kindergarten shit like ``this argument doesn't count because I say so''.

->>44
You're the one actually not saying anything here pal. By being sarcastic and rude you illustrate your own allegation ``this argument doesn't count because I say so''.

Rhetorically I state, about other languages, it is often true that they are bootstrapped in C or implement features in C. Such as GMP for bignum. Many languages are also directly translated to C. This is because the creators (as opposed to the fanboys) probably found C useful in this.

I am merely pointing out the nonsense in saying C is crap despite the fact that most of what you people idealize is implemented with it.

I also say it's the compilers purpose to efficiently interface the CPU. Do you deny this? Why are there different compilers for different architectures?

I'm not saying any language is worse or better actually - YOU ARE - but yeah sure, I like C. I don't dislike any particular language. I acknowledge that application programming languages are more proper to many tasks, but you people who is constantly bashing C in favor of your 1%-language need some serious help with reality.

I think C is a good language exactly because it is not low-level, while it is also not high-level. So there you are right in your clowing around ;).

Last but not least, the best language is the one you're actually productive in and works for you.

>>45
What a language is implemented in is completely irrelevant in a discussion of languages because no matter how much the implementation changes, the language stays the same. On Lisp operating systems, C was implemented on top of Lisp. Does that mean Lisp is the better low-level language? If it doesn't, why should it mean anything with the roles reversed? Current operating systems are C operating systems after all. A monoculture doesn't make a system better, it just hides its flaws under a mountain of resources. You could use the same non-argument to ``show'' that PHP is a great language for web development even though it is a major source of errors and there has never been a single fully correct program written in it. Indeed, PHP toiletscrubbers employ the same rhetorical tricks, including the one where ``the best language is the language you know'', which is not a point about languages but about your own lack of knowledge.

I also say it's the compilers purpose to efficiently interface the CPU.

Nobody argues that a language other than assembly should directly expose hardware-specifics. The C compiler has a harder job here because it must recognize patterns in a weak language rather than break down high-level statements.

I think C is a good language exactly because it is not low-level, while it is also not high-level.

What purpose does it serve if it does nothing well?

Hey guys, you're both idiots.

>>46
Look. I believe you are quite proficient and enthusiastic about the LISPs.
And what constitutes a good language, by ideal, you probably make a very good judge.

I like C due to its machinerealism. It is what has enabled it to become the most ported language, with the most ported software. It is not a mistake.

I like that C offers control structures and a reasonabel memorymodel. I feel like C is very intuitive and I feel the same way about Assembly language.

It's intermediate level (not low, not high) is a *necessity* to achive machine independency. You think undefined behavior is a mistake, I think it is reality.

And in the case were we like to take advantage of uncommon (not as in rare, but as in peculiarity) machine features we merely extend a program with something like e.g. intel_aesni.S, intel_rdrand.S, while the rest is plain C.

I realized this discussion is actually older than both C and LISP. This is no different from the rationalism v. realism in continental philosophy. If you demand me a longer answer I will return with one. But I don't think it is of any use (and I lost interest).

>>48
Author here.
*Reasonable memory model (typo).

Protip:Attacking C as a language is much more effective when you present actual flaws instead of abstract design choices that backward compatibility requires.

>>50
A flaw doesn't stop being a flaw just because you call it a design choice and put it into cement.

When is it appropriate to use a high level programming language?

More like, "when is it appropriate not to use one."

1.writing stuff that needs to be written fast: rapid prototypes, scripts and utilities for rare use.
2.Demos and concept programs, code which doesn't need performance.
3.High-integrity software: C is too unsafe for it.
C is still the lingua franca of computing. Its like Latin at this point: more advanced and precises languages exist but C provides universal basis for writing new stuff(compilers, VM, interpreters). At the root of most software stacks there is a C/C++ dependency(where C++ being dependent on C-level components and libraries)

>>53
Now when is it appropriate not to use high level programming languages?

>>54
Anywhere where performance and memory matter?
Embedded, Mobile, Internet of things, routers, appliances, microservers, small business who can't afford clusters of servers, basically even web apps if you value performance/memory use above the 'programmer time' meme.

>>55
You don't want to use C for any of those. C is garbage. Everything written in C is junk and full of bugs and security vulnerabilities. Small businesses that use C and end up with buffer overflows and getting their customers' credit card numbers leaked won't be in business very long. Null-terminated strings would eliminate the performance increases from using C in the first place.

There are languages that are faster than C and also nicer to use. Not using C doesn't mean using C++, Lisp, Java, or scripting languages.

>There are languages that are faster than C and also nicer to use
Not aware of any? Are you referring to rigged Rust benchmarks?
Rust isn't nice to use in anyway, its borrow checking autism and paranoia don't allow you to "just code it in".

Just use LISP*

_{Common Lisp is not a LISP}

>>58
Is Java a LISP?

>>59
Java is half LISP, according to Guy Steele.

Goy Seele, the founder of Seele and ex-commander of NERV.

>>61
He's a bigger man than you.

Does this board exist

>>56
Maybe if you wrote the programs, maybe then they are garbage.

I know a lot of great C code. You probably don't even know C code. How did you all get so freaking mad about C anyway?

Many serious pieces of software, a lot of software to create a supportive environment for further abstracted software is implemented with C. And then there are typically small bootstrapping / supporting collections of programs beneath C, in machine code, to supplement in areas where abstractions just isn't sustainable. This is REALITY, and for very good reasons it is so. Because the founders of modern computing made it that way. Are you unhappy with this? Is their work garbage?

And all you have to say about that is "undefined behavior!!!". But so what? Undefined behavior could very well be what makes C great. But you wouldn't understand any of that because instead of programming and proving that YOU are a capable programmer, in whatever language suits your preferences, you probably don't account for sh*t and to hide this fact you indulge in these endless discussions and futile reasoning about what language is better and what language is garbage. This is what a lot of people refer to as "babble", "bullshit". Charlatan.

I shouldn't even have opened my mouth but I admit I was baited. To all the other programmers who simply mind their own business let me just say this: Obviously I am a C programmer, and I enjoy C, I also think C is beautiful. I DON'T think it's LIPS however, and hands down I never read SICP.

You may not agree with C being the great language I percieve it. I think many of you don't, some of you do. Whatever. If you don't you are free to pick ANY OTHER LANGUAGE and I will respect your choice. If you think it's a good language, and you're productive with it, there has to be something to it. I expect the same from you.

So, is there going to be a real discussion about programming languages? Maybe people will share interesting ideas, personal philosophical views et cetera? Will there? Cause simply saying something is "garbage" is not discussion.

>>64
It might be a great language, but it doesn't mean it should be used everywhere. People talk about the performance impact as if using C will be 1,000,000 times faster than other programming languages.

>>64

I know a lot of great C code. You probably don't even know C code. How did you all get so freaking mad about C anyway?

Code by professionals =/= Code done by code monkeys.

>>65
People are generally idiots and so are you if you believe unbacked claims.

>>65
The thing is if C is even x10 faster(with inlime asm highly likely) the benefits and safety of using high-level language evaporate. Imagine
1.You have software that does task X
2.You can run X in Y time or use Z-language with 10*Y runtime
3.Z is safer and more reliable, but it will need x10 the hardware cost or if its parallelisable x10 servers.
4.It will cost significantly more to use Z in real world, then to test and debug X.
Z-language will remain superior and more reliable, but it won't help in this case, and many cases of performance/memory limits hints hardware decide the software, rather than the opposite.
In Z-language land everyone is blessed with dual-xeon/Titans setups but normal people can't afford that shit, and businesses/companies/etc don't want to waste money too.
The result is lots of C and asm, micro-optimizations that bring 0.1% faster code and save 0.1% of datacenter costs.
The only real alternative to C is ada/spark, which requires much more development time to get the same speed as C programmers gain from a few hours of optimizing a piece of code.
So in summary fast/cheap/unsafe C/C++ code is often the optimal solution in many business and research needs. It would be nice if everyone switched to something safer but there are tradeoffs they don't realize, making languages other than C or C++ less viable, while C deficiencies are fixed by libraries having features from these languages.

>>68
I'm pretty sure not many companies reach that scenario.

>>69
Companies that neglect performance of their crucial code pay for it with more hardware costs. Its worse for smaller companies and startups who write code fast and fix the performance later.
At some point the demand/use of software uncovers the lower hardware limits and the company is forced to buy more servers(lowering profits) or refactor the software(introducing new bugs or quirks), both of which sap its valuable development time when competitors and mainstream corporations take interests.

>>64

Many serious pieces of software, a lot of software to create a supportive environment for further abstracted software is implemented with C.

That's why programming sucks. It's always the C parts that make software buggy and exploitable. If the OS language was better, we wouldn't need so many scripting languages in the first place.

Because the founders of modern computing made it that way.

The C (and Unix) founders are not the founders of modern computing. Pretty much everything was poorly copied from Multics. They worked on Multics too, but Unix is like Multics: the bad parts or --Multics (decrement and return less value than before). That's why it's called Unix, as a pun on Multics and Eunuchs.

http://www.hack.org/mc/texts/classic-multics.pdf

Are you unhappy with this? Is their work garbage?

Everything based on C is garbage. The world would be a better place if C never existed. If Microsoft didn't pick C for writing Windows, you wouldn't even be having this discussion. C would be a dead language used only by Plan 9 and BSD hobbyists. Unix was dying in the 90s anyway and would be completely gone if not for GNU/Linux.

Undefined behavior could very well be what makes C great.

Crime could very well be what makes the ghetto great. People choose to live there because of the crime. People choose to use C-based operating systems because of the bugs.

Obviously I am a C programmer, and I enjoy C, I also think C is beautiful.

If you're smarter than Dennis Ritchie, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Theo De Raadt, Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, and everyone else who ever used C, then you might be able to write C, otherwise you're just a poseur. These people can't write safe programs in C, but you think you can?

>>68
A ten-fold performance improvement is a fucking ludicrous scenario unless you are writing number crunching code and in that case you can just write the crucial sections in C or asm (or more likely, use a library written in it). On that note, why do cetards always count inline assembly as a part of their language? It is completely non-standard and discouraged in normal code. You don't see Haskal folks bragging about performance gains from the FFI either.

>>72
They also act like C is the only language with inline assembly.

>>71
You could just as well make these arguments against the hardware design and manufacture which are also "to blame" for unsafe execution. I think i can write safe code in C, and I'm also certain that safe C-code isn't all that rare. Unsafe C-code isn't rare either. What's your point? This is the reality of programling, something you should stay away from if you don't enjoy the challenge. No one language is going to solve the issues you mention. No one language had and no one language will. Undefined behavior, unsafe execution et cetera is what makes C practical in it's application. And it is typical that people like you don't understand this.

And then a lot of your points are just plain wrong.

Now it happens to be like this, I have some exciting projects coming up with a friend and I'll spend my time programming with C rather than waste my time in this incredibly stupid topic. I'm actually going to have fun. Spend your time with your equally confused C-fanatics in this forum. You and them are a match.

Tone it down a little and take care.

>>74
It should be easy to provide an example of safe C code in that case, but instead you retreat, complete with the cliché ``i'll have fun in my real life, nerd''.
You wouldn't even bet your reputation on an anonymous board on the safety of C.

>>75
"The safety of C" is something you guys have been bringing up. You're the ones making a fanatic deal about it. Not me. I'm just saying it isn't as "unsafe" (or "safe"). I think however it is perfectly fine in this regard. I acknowledge there is vulnerable C code (so what?). I can not currently think of one attack vector against C programs that is thoroughly to attribute to the language design of C. While there are some (always exaggerated) examples of obviously unsafe utilizations of C most critical vulnerabilities in computing also has ties to OS design and implementation, architectural design and conventions, et cetera. Any serious programmer realizes this.

And I find this discussion pathetic. It's not a retreat when I simply don't want to spend too much time arguing over this.

Anyway I was just here to refer to bring in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg03267.html

>>76
I really can't tell whether this is master-level trolling or a legit C fanboy going through mental gymnastics to the point he believes his own sleighs of hand.
Whatever it is, I'm impressed, holy fuck.

What exactly do the anti-C bigots suggest be used instead? It's not like there's a plausible alternative for writing kernels and drivers in, unless you want to go back to assembly language.

Name me 1 unsafe thing about C, I dare you.

Most rograms shosuld be written in ml or.lisp, only a very small amount of things shold actually be done in c