dev (dev@kerenls.org) on 7/5/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>>This is a stupid tangent though, you're just hoping to catch me out and make yourself
>>feel superior. In reality you've shown not much understanding of the language or your claims yourself.
>
>Gotta admit you're difficult to bait.
>
>Allow me give you an example why C sucks. Say the job is to calculate the predicted
>realtime trajectory of 5000 online players. You can write less code in pretty much
>any other language than C to get the job done. And do so in less time. There are
>several trains of thought and methodoligies to solve the problem. C's language and
>library facilities are too primitive to support any of them well.

If I may ask, can you name the language "X" you are talking about that satisfies *all* of the following criteria at the same time:

1. is a better language than C

2. code written in X has the same or better performance than code written in C

3. has a good, fast and stable compiler

4. very easily interfaces to C libraries, and vice versa

5. has a fairly good IDE in Linux, and the IDE is able to seamlessly handle *both* C and X. (Note: A mere text editor is not an IDE. For example, the old Turbo Pascal 6 from the good old DOS days is not an IDE by todays standards.)

It seems to me that the only language satisfying all of these criteria is just one: C/C++. In other words, X = C.

>Granted C is popular. But it's 40 years old. And it disregards advances CS made
>as a (minor) scientific discipline.

Can you be more specific? What "CS advances" do you mean?

>C, more than anything, doomed many talented
>young people to wasted million of hours month after month on drudgery that's compeletly
>pointless, that can be easily removed by a small amount of decent compiler and language work.
>
>But that'd too much to ask. Even Thompson's new language work would get buried by the shear weight existing C code.
>
>It all boil down to how much do code monkeys' life worth? The answer is not much. Just work them longer..