«

C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.

I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!


Love,

Ekoj Looflirpa

On 1 Apr 2005 06:28:23 -0800, "Ekoj LoofLirpa" <>
wrote:

>C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
>1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
>world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
>attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
>the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>
>I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
>easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
>That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
>like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
>And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
>real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
>is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!
>
Somebody found a stupid mistake in your program, eh?

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting

Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>
> I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
> easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
> That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
> like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
> And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
> real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
> is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!
>
>
> Love,
>
> Ekoj Looflirpa
>

Yes. I have followed your advice IMMEDIATELY. You are 100% RIGHT.

I bought Delphi (just a bit over US$ 1000). That is a professional
object oriented language, that comes with a .NET version at the latest
fad level.

After installing it, and several days to clear license issues, I got
started with it.

I clicked in the icon of the compiler, (excuse me, IDE), I saw a popup
window after 10 seconds, and then...

Well then I learned how good is to have some time to REFLECT what I am
doing, for a change. It took Delphi 2005 1 minute and half to start and
open a small project.

Of course this is due to my old machine, a slow AMD 64 bit with just
a GIG of RAM. I should buy a new one of course:

"We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages" you say. I would
say the same of old fashioned 64 bit hardware. Let's buy the 256 bit AMD
2009.

But back to Delphi. I started typing code but.... Ahhh the editor
couldn't keep with my typing. I know I type fast, and I like this
feature:

You type, and then you wait, without seeing what you typed, 4-6 seconds
until Delphi catches up. I was used to this from MSDOS, when some
editors swapped and swapped to fit all my document in a 20K buffer.

Welcome to the future! It looks increasingly like the past, but never
mind.

According to most people, the speed of .NET is approx 1 tenth of what
raw machine code provides. And C is raw machine code. It is true, a
string type is sorely needed in C but... a 10 times performance
loss?????

Why can't Delphi catch up with the typing???

Because this is progress man. The latest fad, the latest development in
language research.

Make the language as inefficient as possible so that the customer
buys new hardware to keep up with the bloat.

I compiled a hellowin demo program that in lcc-win32 makes 4K with the
latest version of Visual Studio 64 bits.

It produced a 532K (yes, half a megabyte) program. And the program would
not start, because the embedded manifest was not correctly generated...

Progress, progress.

Bloat is to be avoided, the people in this group agree. We do not agree
in anything else but at least that, we agree: bloat is to be avoided,
program efficiency is important.

That's why we stick to C you see?

Thanks for your advise anyway.

jacob

"Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:

> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.

You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.
--
"You call this a *C* question? What the hell are you smoking?" --Kaz

Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>
> I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
> easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory
leaks?
> That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
> like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented
langage.
> And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean
a
> real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that
C#
> is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --
blech!
>
>
> Love,
>
> Ekoj Looflirpa

Dammit, you *had me* for about 15 minutes. Here I'd gone and written
an impassioned defense of the purity of C in the face of heretical,
labor-saving languages like C#, and then I realized what I was
responding to.

*Bastard* :-p~~~

wrote:

> Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
>> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
>> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
>> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
>> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
>> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>>
>> I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
>> easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory
> leaks?
>> That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
>> like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented
> langage.
>> And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean
> a
>> real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that
> C#
>> is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --
> blech!
>>
>>
>> Love,
>>
>> Ekoj Looflirpa

> Dammit, you *had me* for about 15 minutes. Here I'd gone and written
> an impassioned defense of the purity of C in the face of heretical,
> labor-saving languages like C#, and then I realized what I was
> responding to.

But he's completely right! I am, for example, lobbying since years for
the abolishment of knives and forks. They are so last-millenium and
dangerous to use (do you realize how many people each year get hurt
severely by improper use of forks, not even taking knives into account
- what a burden to our struggling economies), and with the advent of
modern and powerful food-processing machines, that easily will convert
a dinner into mush, nobody needs them anymore. Since people usually
don't drink enough anyway, after adding a bit of water, all you then
need is a straw to ingest your tasty dinner, even cutting out the need
for spoons, which also can be rather dangerous if not used with utter
care (if you have a loved one who pricked out an eye with the pointy
end of a spoon you will know what I am talking about, it happens all
too often).
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___
\__________________________ http://www.toerring.de

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:39:25 -0800, Ben Pfaff <> wrote:

>"Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:
>
>> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
>> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
>> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
>> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
>> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>
>You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
>c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.

I can believe it. People do get caught up in stuff and often this amounts
to selecting form over function. (I especially love the one about the
Jaguar owner who ends up buying a used Toyota to get around in while the
Jag's in the shop.)

OOP is not better than functional or procedural approaches, it's slower and
much more complicated. But it is more popular because one can drop classes
in like building blocks (like you can't do that with a good library of
subroutines?).

RAD is the cause of most of the bloat out there but programmers on deadlines
like the way it impresses the boss.

These aren't improvements... they're form over function marketing tactics.

C may be an old language, and it probably should be updated to include a
true string type, but it is still one of the most powerful and machine
compatible languages out there. Modern computers may be faster and smarter,
but they still work essentially the same way as computers did when C was
created. C is still around because the same basic computer architecture is
still around. CPUs don't understand Objects and Classes... they understand
sequential execution, subroutines and interrupts... i.e. they understand C.
That's the key to C's longevity, C programming structure has a 1 to 1
correlation with the way CPUs work. (The only way to get closer is ASM and
I wouldn't wish a big assembler project on my worst enemy. [grin])

Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...

I started out programming in Pascal way back in the late 70s. Moved to
turbo pascal when PCs came out and then, after an interregnum where I played
at being a hardware geek, I purchased Delphi which was touted as the newest
and best programming language on the planet. (Yes, I know Delphi is
actually an application written in Object Pascal.)

After producing a number of small utilities (learning curve stuff) that
turned out to be huge --really freaking huge-- I began to question the
language. Eventually I dug the object pascal underpinnings out of Delphi
and began working in that, producing smaller and far more efficient
programs...

Until, that is, I discovered this...

Program ohno;
{$apptype console}

// uses sysutils;

var a,b,c : integer;

begin
a = 1;
b = 0;

Try
c = a / b;
Except
writeln('I snagged an exception');

end.

Every Delphi programmer should test this simple program. Note that the
division by 0 exception is NOT caught unless you un-comment the "uses
sysutils" line. And when you do un-comment that line your program grows by
nearly 30k (the entire object and class mechanisms have to be fully
initialized to handle the exception).

When writing programs in Delphi entire *keywords* of the language shut down
if you don't include certain units ("sysutils", in the example above).

Ever wondered why the Delphi IDE auto-includes so many units when you start
a new project? This is why. Core language functionality implemented upon
classes and objects in user loaded libraries. And don't even get me started
on their memory manager...

And were's the warning about this? Does it produce a syntax error? Is there
a compiler warning? Nope. The caution exists only as a softly worded note
in the back pages of a help file... AND Borland has said this is "acceptable
behaviour".

Lets face it... Any language that relies upon user loaded libraries for it's
core functionality is *deeply* flawed. One has to wonder how many Delphi
programs are out there with this nasty little bugg(er) alive and kicking.

I'm working in C now...
Found an implementation I really like...
I think I'll stick with it for a decade or three.

Alan Balmer wrote:
> Somebody found a stupid mistake in your program, eh?

Funny, that's exactly what I thought too.

But the whole thing looks clearly like an April's fool.
Heck, he even signed his "note" with "Love,"... mwahahaha

wrote:
> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
>

Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
(as I did) Delphi 2005.

I guess you will not be surprised.

jacob

Ben Pfaff wrote:
> "Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:
>
> > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
> > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
> > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
> > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this
is
> > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
>
> You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
> c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.

I probably am sure it is a joke, at least based on the poster's name.

We do indeed get ones of the "y do u use C when C# is da bom" sort.
Even more frequent are the ones that aren't posted as flamebait, but
occur offhand in groups, like, "there's no new development in C, it's
all just maintenance at this point."


Brian