Do function pointers make C a functional language?
Do void pointers enable generic programming in C?
Also doesn't C support OOP?
>inb4 /v/ poster doesn't know about GTK+
Now, what's the point of all these new languages that don't actually have anything more to offer than C does, and C does it faster and with a longer proven track record.
>>54347124
Of course not. C doesn;t support OOP. But you can "Emulate" it using function pointers as struct members. (they still need a reference to the object tho.).
Function pointers don't make it functional, but they did make it more functional than its contemporaries such as Pascal.
Void pointers permit genericity in a very vague, but technically unsafe way. Preprocessor hacks permit genericity in a more statically-analyzable but uglier, clunkier way.
OOP is entirely doable (see: glib) but using C these days is a statement against modern "wisdom", so why would you?
Nice language faggot
Let's see if you can even average two ints without fucking up
>>54347488
>C is the only language with floating point numbers
Nice bait
>>54347519
Why not have working numbers instead of floating numbers?
>>54347535
>I don't know how computers represent numbers in binary
>>54347563
>on some systems
>>54347563
>on some systems
>>54347592
>implying the C way is the only way
Mathematica gets that right
>>54347697
>IEEE 754
>"the C way"
It's always the fags who know jack shit about computers complaining about C
>>54347757
Nice try but after Googling a bit I found out both were invented by the ISO standards commite
C is ISO/IEC 9899:1990
This "floating point" is ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011
>>54347697
Mathematica
>an interpreted language for math abstractions
C
>a compiled language designed to replace assembly programming
I wonder which one has to conform to the way CPUs deal with numbers.
>>54347950
This just proves C is obsolete
>>54347984
Yeah let's just program kernels in Mathematica, it'll work better
>>54348037
How many kernels have you been paid to code anon?
>>54347124
>be cs junior
>have no idea whats going on in this thread
am i fucked
>>54348053
>moving the goal posts
>>54347124
No, C has side effects
C is not a functional language
case closed
delete this thread
>>54348082
Haskell has side effects too
>>54348144
And your point is? Haskell is a not a functional language if you include the use of its features that allow for side effects or require it.
There's a reason why no 'pure' functional languages are in use because they are useless.
>>54347347
Neither does Java support OOP
>>54347124
>Do function pointers make C a functional language?
What the fuck are you on about?
No, it makes it object oriented.
>>54351140
You shitcorn fuck, do you not understand how method calls in C++ actually work?
>>54348172
you literally argued against yourself.
very impressive
>>54347124
bumping one of the two interesting threads on /g/ right now
>>54347124
The reason why we have languages other than C is because most people are retarded and computers are now fast enough that we can trade performance for ease-of-programming. The number of CS grads who can't even concatenatenate two strings in C without using strcat is staggering.
>>54348144
>Haskell
>side effects
Pick one and only one, faggot. Despite what you may think, the IO monad is pure.
>>54352519
>le C is the pefect langage may-may
>>54347347
That doesn't make it OOP... It also increases verbosity for nothing.
>>54347124
>don't have anything more to offer than C
kek, summerfag, go take a decent CS course and get back to us
>>54347347
OOP isn't defined as "methods inside a class accessed with a '.'" you moron.
