Why aren't you using the C programming language to write all your applications?
>>53891386
Because I use C# and want to earn money by myself.
>>53891386
Because I have better things to do than write a bunch of malloc and free calls.
Because I'm not a smarty pants like you...
>>53891386
Because no language is one size fits all, retard.
Why did you make a thread for this?
segmentation fault
>>53891386
because D is better
Because my time is valuable.
For example I don't want to read for 30 minutes on how to open a TCP socket, or have to implement or search for libraries for simple things such as hash tables.
>>53892178
>i don't know how to implement hash tables
protip: gluing together libraries is not programming
>>53892140
This.
>>53892140
Andrei go to bed
>>53892194
Actually implying.
>>53892140
Stay where you are Dimitri don't come any closer
I prototype my shit in python and then let the fucking worthless code monkeys rewrite it in a faster language if needed. Most of the time I don't because all the speedcritical shit is already c extensioned. Real cute thread though
>>53892194
I agree. No one should even program before they've hand coded their OS.
it not web scale like JS
>>53891386
Chitanda is a cutie
Because C++ libraries are almost always better than C libraries.
And when they are not, there is a C++ version.
So for desktop applications, C++ is better.
>>53892580
i agree
too bad her show was shit
>>53892194
You should be able to work with abstractions.
It shouldn't matter if it was written by a colleague or a stranger, you should be able to take it as a black box and put it into your design.
Not including libraries is only acceptable when you write a library.
>>53891386
C is for curious
>>53892308
Seems like a good way to do it.
Iterating over a working product is much better and it means you can produce a product when the deadline comes
Because I'm stuck migrating a massive codebase for a desktop application suite in VB6 to a web-based service written in C#, ASP.NET, and JavaScript, and the database servers use a dead language with a document store that predates the term NoSQL.
Jesus are we having another functional vs oop thread? Read a fucking book. It's called using the right tool for the job.
You're just trying to post more anime, you monster
>>53892717
Interpreted languages are not valid software engineering tools.
>>53891386
By the time a library is standardized enough to be a C library, it's been peer reviewed so many times that the performance loss on higher level languages is too negligible to warrant a switch.
Also the usual maintainability, scalability, and expert's language things.
>>53892178
You're just stupid.
>>53892194
reinventing the wheel is programming?
CHITANDA A CUTE
>>53891386
>implying im not
>>53891386
because I grew up and began using objected oriented languages like a real programmer
Jokes on you OP, I can barely write code at all.
Because the libraries are made out of unsafe calls and it's dangerous and unnecessarily difficult to use for networking. It's better to provide C programs as a back end and then let python handle all the internet stuff and client front end visuals.
>>53892135
>Programmer is retarded error
It's not memory-safe, subject to integer overflows, buffer overflows, double-free vulns... You think you're smart enough to use C safely, then you're either djb or you are wrong.
Rust is superior in every way. And when I need truly low-level control, that's what assemhly language is for.
Go is okay. Good for micro-threaded or network stuff.
If I want something higher-level, what's wrong with LuaJIT or Python?
Sorry, but C is a dangerous choice when we have better ones.
Because my uni requires using meme languages like Java and XML.
>>53892849
Did he ever say they were. Fucking comp sci majors piss me off.
>>53891386
>Why don't you use a shotgun to trim all your fingernails?
>>53891386
I use C for just about everything. When i do not use c, I write bash scripts. C is good.
Python's better suited to my needs.
>>53891386
nice meme book faggot
>>53897339
well anything is good compared to bash
>>53897425
>programming is computer science
What is even going on here...
>>53897035
>Rust is superior in every way
No
t. Rust programmer
>>53897833
Yes
t. anyone with at least half a brain.
>>53892140
its one better
>>53891386
I make websites for a living. All i need is wordpress to make bank, why even bother with such autistic behavior such as ""CODING""
>>53892061
>C
>using malloc
>>53892048
This. C# is best language
>>53895227
>working with square wheels
Because D exists and can function both as a better C, including core packages with the C stdlib, and as a high performance modern language with all the tools I'll ever need.
Because you can't make a kickass 3D animation software in C
>>53898347
I lol'd.
>>53891386
Have you tried to write a proper gui application purely in C? It takes... a long time.
>>53898428
>gui libraries dont exist in C
>>53898443
Have you tried using GTK purely in C? It's not exactly a walk in the park. Aside from GTK there's no modern cross platform gui library that you can use purely with C.
>>53898380
Yes you can
They do. In the most cases they use code written in C, assembler and sometimes C++. For example: Linux, Windows, and OSX kernels are written in C and assembler, CPython, an interpreter for Python, is written in C, .NET Core runtime is written in C++, databases like Postgres SQL are written in C. So, all of them either use or fucked by C and C++.
>>53898281
How would you not use malloc?
>>53898684
not using malloc is a meme by idiots that don't know C or think they know it because they can write trivial or horrible programs with it.
>>53898684
>>53898706
Maybe they mean using jemalloc or something.
>>53898744
i seriously doubt people spouting short single sentence replies to complex problems even know what jemalloc is
It's retardation to find a favourite hammer and then suddenly start seeing every problem as a nail.
C has its place, but there are better languages for many use cases where C is not necessary.
Leave the religious wars to religions and let reason be your guide.
because people are poorfly fucking educated hipster faggots
>muh java
>muh ios develpment
>muh microsoft spoonfed horseshit
>>53891386
Because java is superior
>>53898904
you are the cancer
>>53898916
Two cups of tea for this gentleman.
>>53898893
Developing GUI's and targeting mobile devices is way easier with java.
Would be nice if it was as in C but there is no easy framework to target mobile devices with C.
>>53898916
Did you ever write more than a fizzbuzz for g? Didnt think so, "c programmer"
>>53898916
desu ctards are a bigger cancer yet.
>>53898940
>Developing GUI
every java "gui" looks like it was "designed" by a brain-damaged mong
please fuck off and die
every fucking time i use my java-powered baking website, for example, i cringe at every fucking interaction
>>53898684
By using it only in cases where it's absolutely necessary. I review a lot of C code and about 75% of the time I see a malloc, it could be replaced with a stack-based allocation, for example.
>>53891386
Because I don't hate myself.
>>53899346
What are you, some kind of non white?
>>53891386
It's almost like you've never had a job before.
>>53899335
is the code you review trivial? plenty of C programs cannot abuse a large stack.
>>53899335
If you're including dynamic stack arrays in that list, kill yourself.
Otherwise, yes, many people use the heap where it is unnecessary.
>>53892194
Pro tip: you're a massive cuck
As a beginner this thread is disconcerting to me. Should I still learn C?
>>53899386
Legacy media- and telecom-boxes with old C software but running on modern hardware. Besides, if the stack is not enough, a static buffer will do too.
>>53899424
Dynamic data structures are cases where dynamic allocation is required. The problem with dynamic allocation is when people write interfaces dealing with dynamically allocated objects instead of giving the programmer the choice of how to allocate an object.
>>53898767
jerome malloc?
>>53899480
c or java at a basic level, from there should have little problems expanding to other languages
>>53899480
C is good to learn as an introduction to programming. Its syntax isn't hard to grok and the big, confusing issues of C can be ignored as a beginner.
You'll definitely want to learn more languages down the line and, and then learn the advantages/disadvantages of each language so you know when one is appropriate or not. That's a lot to hold in your brain as someone new tho and you don't have to worry about that yet. C is fine for learning basic concepts.
If you're teaching yourself, Python may be easier tho.
>>53899335
In C, you can put everything on the stack in your main function, which becomes very cumbersome very quickly, and you are limited to 10MB before you reach a stack overflow.
Any nontrivial memory storage is going to be in the form of pointers to malloc'd blocks of memory that get passed around.
You have never written anything more substantial than a fizzbuzz.
Because I can write C in Sepples
>>53899774
>10MB stack
>mfw I'm an embedded dev who mostly uses MSP430 and would KILL for even a 1MB stack.
>>53899799
Is it really true that malloc is forbidden in embedded c development?
>>53892849
yeah because erlang isn't used for facebook messenger, atms, league of legends chat, amazon's simpledb, ericsson's telephony, yahoo's delicious, whatsapp, tmobile's sms, and motorola's call processing.
and lisp isn't used for ai research.
and lua isn't used for neural network research.
and python isn't used for just about everything.
and perl isn't the most critical parts of a quarter of the internet.
fuck interpreted languages, they're not even REAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING TOOLS.
>>53891386
Because I'm not mentally retarded.
>>53899858
Not per se, but it may as well be.
Even the fuck-off huge memory microcontroller platforms that are encroaching into processor territory have just over a single MB in totality of memory.
On the lower end of, say, the MSP430, you have to actually muck around with the max heap size setting in Code Composer just to enable printf. This is why most people end up writing their own replacement for it, or using other examples.
>>53899774
>You have never written anything more substantial than a fizzbuzz.
Please refer to >>53899492 since you seem to be unable to follow a discussion.
>>53899858
>>53899946 (me)
The best way to think about it is that microcontrollers are really exactly that.
A lot of the programming you do in cloud, server, or desktop development is really managing data in large-ish quantities. Embedded development is more managing interfaces between different circuits. Even if you want your micro to handle data, Most of the time that's handled by adding an SRAM or EEPROM to the board and logging to that instead of the chip's internal memory, the rest is simply sending the data directly elsewhere like a desktop or server to have it logged there.
>>53898684
I use calloc senpai.
>>53899869
>lisp isn't used for ai research.
The Lisp failure (referred to as the "AI winter") made DARPA angry. They spent billions of taxpayers' money and got nothing. Lisp machines quickly became slower than software implementations on cheap hardware.
The working AI projects like Watson and those chess and go playing computers do not use Lisp.
>During the 1960s, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (then known as "ARPA", now known as "DARPA") provided millions of dollars for AI research with almost no strings attached. DARPA's director in those years, J. C. R. Licklider believed in "funding people, not projects"[18] and allowed AI's leaders (such as Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, Herbert A. Simon or Allen Newell) to spend it almost any way they liked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
>>53900037
i didn't say anything about lisp machines and lisp is currently used for ai, but thanks for reading the wikipedia article i guess.
>>53899869
They're software engineering languages, but they make compromises. You only use them if you're lazy (or just don't want to deal with the hassle that compiled languages have), and where you're willing to trade ease of use for performance (notice how almost everything you mentioned is web-based).
>>53892178
>search for libraries for simple things such as hash tables.
It's actually surprising that this doesn't come in the standard C library.
>>53892194
>implementing your own inefficient hash table rather than using someone's battle tested, optimized, and bug-free implementation
It's obvious why you're unemployed.
>>53897035
>And when I need truly low-level control, that's what assemhly language is for
No, you idiot, that's what C is for.
>>53900102
>It's actually surprising that this doesn't come in the standard C library.
It's not surprising. If you don't understand why, just get away from C and use Go or something.
>>53899774
>Any nontrivial memory storage is going to be in the form of pointers to malloc'd blocks of memory that get passed around.
So it uses something like a list of memory indexes? Because I've used more than 10MB in C programs.
>>53900094
goalposts, and they have plenty of performance for all of those very major projects so imo they're good enough for most people.
regardless, i wasn't comparing them to compiled languages, i was simply defending them being software engineering tools, which they most certainly are.
>>53898744
>using some jew malloc
No thanks, I don't want to pay taxes on my allocated memory.
C + boehm GC is best C
>>53900142
>It's not surprising. If you don't understand why, just get away from C and use Go or something.
Why does me not understanding something mean I should switch to something else? I'd actually like to understand why its not included.
>>53900154
>goalposts
That was my first post in this thread.
>and they have plenty of performance for all of those very major projects
Which are bottlenecked much more by the network speed, as you know. Facebook Messenger isn't exactly the greatest piece of engineering I've seen, but that has much more to do with a slow network and Pajeet coding than the language itself.
I don't even see why being a "software engineering language" would be a measure of quality, lots of software, important one, is written in Python for example, doesn't make it any better.
>>53900124
>someone's battle tested, optimized, and bug-free implementation
it's wrong to assume everything that's already written is the best option possible.
>>53900225
But it's even more wrong to think anything you can write can come even close to it. And the time you spent doing it could have been spent actually writing your fucking application
>>53900189
>I'd actually like to understand why its not included.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6118539/hashtable-as-part-of-standard-c-library
>>53900189
>I don't even see why being a "software engineering language" would be a measure of quality
well, the person i was replying to
>>53892849
seems to think it is, judging by the seemingly random comment that interpreted languages aren't _valid_ (emphasis) software engineering tools.
>>53900232
all this reads like is you're too stupid to roll out your own hash table because you want to get that work done faster than pajeet.
>>53900254
And you read like you're an unemployed basement dwelling bike-shedder who never uses anything more than C and its standard library.
>>53900242
>https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6118539/hashtable-as-part-of-standard-c-library
Yes, I read that link. It has a long-winding explanation that "it's not there because it's not there". There's no real reason as to why it shouldn't have hashtables. There's nothing inherent about C that makes hashtables an impossible or even hard feature, simply no one got around to adding them.
Good job pretending you have some ancient knowledge on the subject and then posting the first result to googling "C hashtable" which doesn't even answer the question.
>>53900338
>i dont understand standards
>i dont understand design philosophy
>i also have bad reading comprehension and couldn't follow the intro material given to me
>but i know more about this than you even though i was asking leading questions about it
>>53900387
You didn't answer the question at all, you posted the first link to "C hashtable" which I had already read and you didn't - if you had read it, you'd have known the answer it provided was the vaguest shit possible.
The truth is you have no idea why the C standard library doesn't include hashtables, but since this is the internet you need throw around buzzwords to make yourself look superior.
But keep pretending you know a lot about this, those smug loli faces and greentext are sure making you win. Next you're going to call me an autist or some other maymay from the past decade.
>>53891386
I am you dumb anime
>>53900338
Short explanation: Hash tables don't fit the abstraction level of the C standard.
If you still do not understand, just use Go.
>>53900443
this is why you were told
>>53900142
there's clearly a knowledge gap here.
>>53900232
Spoken like a true code monkey.
Enjoy your 9-5 CRUD computer janitor work.
>>53900338
C is a small language, it's easy to port to any architecture because cstdlib is so fucking small.
Go write your own implementation of hash tables if you want them so bad, you might actually learn something.
>>53900489
>TCP sockets fit the level of abstraction of C
>a structure that maps keys to memory addresses doesn't
Don't even bother replying, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
>>53900503
The person who told me showed they have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, so any accusation of me being ignorant is disregarded. I'll take that accusation from someone who DOES provide a decent answer.
>>53900545
That wasn't my question though.
>>53900576
C doesn't need standard data structures
Make your own library if you want it so bad
>>53900608
>Make your own library if you want it so bad
Again, I never said I wanted it at all. I asked why it didn't come included in the standard C library. L2debate.
>>53900576
I'm not reading your wall of text, you just keep complaining about why C doesn't have every data structure under the sun ready to use.
This isn't python.
If you can't even copy the psuedocode examples from wikipedia, then you're not a programmer.
>>53900576
Can you point me to the section where TCP sockets are defined as a part of the C standard? I don't seem to recall.
>>53900628
>I'm not reading your wall of text
Translation: I have no counter-point.
>you just keep complaining about why C doesn't have every data structure under the sun ready to use.
I never once even complained about it not having A SINGLE data structure. If I'm wrong, show me a single post where I complained. I asked WHY it didn't have it and apparently you don't know. I'm sorry you can't read, anon.
>>53900651
>http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xns/syssocket.h.html
#include<sys/socket.h>
>>53900667
You sound like a child tbqh fampai.
please leave
>>53900708
>resorts to name-calling
Go get some air, anon.
>>53900694
>http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xns/syssocket.h.html
But that's part of the Single UNIX Specification, not the C standard.
>>53900726
But it comes in the standard library. If you can have stuff that come in stdlib and aren't a part of the C standard, why even bring up the C standard as a justification for hashtables not being in stdlib, which has been my question this entire time?
>>53900740
Which stdlib exactly? There are several, you know.
>>53900759
The GNU one? I'm not sure, this is why I'm asking about this. But as far as I can tell the answer has nothing to do with the standard since you can have stuff not in the standard that are in the standard library.
I'm not pretending to be educated about this, I just don't think it's fair to be insulted by people who can't explain it as well.
>>53900783
>i don't know shit about programming but i gleaned a wikipedia page so i can look like i know what i'm talking about
>WHADDYA MEAN I CANT JUST IMPORT EVERYTHING?!
you're cute
>>53900783
>But as far as I can tell the answer has nothing to do with the standard
It has everything to do with the standard. Read about the multitude of architectures that C is ran on.
>>53900821
>more memes
>still no answer
It's ok to be ignorant, anon, just admit it.
>>53900831
Fine, can you show me the relation between the C standard and the fact that hashtables aren't included in stdlib? Or are you going to keep throwing "read this" and "it's related to that"? Because that's all I've gotten.
>>53900863
C users read a lot. If you're not willing to read, I'm afraid I can't help you.
>>53900821
Thank you for using my pic so much, it makes me feel nice <3
>>53900821
Who is that cutie?
>>53900897
>"I totally know the answer, I just don't want to say it, for your own good. But I promise it's related to this thing, even though there's an example of the contrary"
Ok, thanks anon.
>>53900934
Just use Go.
>>53891386
>c
>applications
Pick one.
>>53900929
Kirie chan
>>53900740
Hi, I'm on Windows. I use GCC on Windows. The socket library you claim to be available to me is not. If I try to include a lot of the sys/whatever.h shit, my compiler will complain about a missing header.
The Single UNIX Specification is not a part of the C standard, and you should never treat it as a standard library unless you only wish to target Unix as a platform.
As for why we don't have hash tables in C, keep in mind that we don't have templates. If C was to have hash tables available, what would be the target types?
Because that is a terrible idea and needlessly complex, and the many cons far outweigh the single benefit of a marginal increase in performance.
>>53901773
battery life
>>53901773
have you seen a ruby codebase?
>>53898300
Tard spotted
>>53900140
Sorry to break it to you anon, but although it's most traditionally used for systems programming, C is a high-level imperative language. I appreciate it might not feel like that next to very high-level languages, or scripting languages, or even C++, let alone something like Java which adds verbosity on top of runtimes on top of garbage-collected, JITted bytecode... but it is. It's just that "high" kept getting higher with other, newer languages with more convenient abstractions.
But look up "undefined behavior" sometime, and gaze in horror upon the abyss of compiler bugs and not-bugs-but-definitely-malfeatures that awaits - and look up the Dragon book (Principles of Compiler Design, Aho/Ullman) to get an idea just how far you are from actual code and what you have to do to get there, and the pitfalls along the way.
When you really need to not be second-guessed and ignored by your compiler because people will actually die IRL if you are, using C is not going to help you. You didn't really need that memset, did you? Or that for loop to always count to the end? You've got an overflow check there, so the compiler's going to do absolutely anything it damn well wants with no guarantees whatsoever: that's just fine and dandy, right?
No. When I want high-level, I want safe. When I want low-level, I want as close to absolute control as I can get. C doesn't really fall into either of those categories anymore.
Of course, you cannot really do anything to control a CPU's internal scheduling, branch prediction or µop allocation. But assembly is the best you've got for actually telling a computer what to do without being second-guessed: it's as low-level as you're going to practically get without going into Verilog or VHDL or something.
>>53900338
your argument is as bad as saying scheme should have objects in the standard library just because it can
>>53904178
>relying on undefined behavior for your program to work
Sounds like you're just another victim of Stupidity (TM).
>>53900036
>here comes the calloc shias
>>53904264
>shias
calloc rules
>>53891386
>he actually used C and "application" in one sentence
it physically hurts me
>>53904178
This is totally not true at all. C was called "portable assembly" in the 1970s. That's why C was made.
>>53891386
Android does not support it unfortunately.
>>53904420
stuip comment, android suports C
you must study about "native class"
>>53904346
When C was first introduced, "write once, run anywhere" was the latest craze.
C was incredibly high level for it's time.
Writing a whole operating system in a high level language like C would be like trying to write an operating system in javascript today.
>>53904461
>>C was incredibly high level for it's time.
true
>>53904461
You're either a troll or you've never heard of MULTICS (which you should have, given its influence on UNIX) or the Burroughs 5000. Education keeps getting worse and worse.
>>53900545
Anybody who's taken a data structures course can implement a hash table, it doesn't mean that it's worth doing unless you actually need to use C for your project for some reason.
99% of the time, the fedora-tipping neckbeards shilling for C on this board are not writing software that's ever going to be ported to different architectures, they're using it because they think having to reinvent the wheel every time they want to write trivial shit makes them l33t hackers
>>53898300
Have fun with your proprietary closed-source uncracked Java clone
>not making your OS from the ground up in forth and assembly
plebs
>>53891386
Because that's a fucking stupid idea.
>>53904178
You will never write assembly as well-optimized as a C compiler, sorry.
