Re: OT: Why is C so popular?

From: Loren M Lang (lorenl_at_alzatex.com)
Date: 08/27/03

  • Next message: Jacob Anawalt: "Re: Help me please with TAR" 
    Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Debian-User Mailing List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Alex Malinovich wrote:

    > The recent COBOL discussion has gotten me to thinking. Some languages
    > seem to be very popular in some situations. C is easily the dominant
    > language for most things Linux. So therein lies the question. Why,
    > exactly, is C so popular? Especially in comparison to C++. I can't think
    > of a single reason to use C instead of C++ for most of the coding that I
    > would do. I generally only write user applications. I don't get anywhere
    > near the kernel which is where I'd imagine most of the reason for using
    > C comes in. Yet I see people writing 'modern' GUI applications and using
    > C when I would think C++ would be a much better choice. Is there
    > something that I'm missing? Something that C actually does better than
    > C++ in regards to higher-level functions?

    I can think of a few reasons myself:
    1) Compatibility
    2) Speed
    3) Portability

    1) Libraries are a good thing to be written in C unless they are
    specifically releated to a programming language that is not C like the
    standard C++ libraries. It is very easy to write a wrapper for a library
    written in C for use in other languages like Perl, Python, C++, Java,
    Ruby. But much harder to write a wrapper for a C++ library to use in
    other languages like C, etc. The Arts client libraries are a good example
    of that situation. The libraries are written in C++ with a special
    library that acts as a C wrapper. The problem is the wrapper library is
    severly limited compared to the C++ libraries, my guess is the programmers
    got a little lazy when it came time to write the wrapper and it has caused
    me some trouble trying to use the libraries.

    Also, any C library can be used in C++ without a wrapper, but a wrapper is
    required for the other direction.

    And have you ever tried to open a C++ library using dlopen()? It requires
    at least one C function to start with since all the C++ functions names
    are mangles. It's doable, but a little bit of a pain.

    Lastly, C has more libraries for a user programs then any other language
    except C++ of course.

    2) C is just faster than C++ and much faster then almost any other choice
    as far as code speed. Even when I'm writing in C++ I will use fopen() and
    fprint() for file I/O then the C++ equilelants because they are noticably
    faster. C++ with never make it into the kernel for this reason along with
    others.

    3) C is more portable then C++. I can take almost any C code and use it
    with almost any C or C++ compiler or even other variations like Objective
    C or Dynamic C with very few problems. Most exceptions are maybe use of
    newer features of C like ## or enum or directives like #pragma. In some
    enviorments C is the only way to go, other languages like Cobol, C++, or
    Perl are just too high level. Once case is the TI-89, it's to limited to
    run C++ effectively. I've never seen anyone even attempt to write a C++
    compiler for it. Other embedded systems like Microchip's PIC
    microcontrollers are just barely leaving asm for C now, it will be a while
    before they will support C++. Rabbit Semiconductor sells a Z80 based
    microchips and they created a language called Dynamic C which is basicly C
    with special support for state machines. It won't do C++ either.

    If people don't learn C before C++, it A) a little harder to learn
    properly, and B) it's harder for them to learn other languages later like
    C, Objective C, and Dynamic C with are all C dirivatives.

    I think this is at least a little sample of why C is better sometimes than
    C++.

    >
    > (Note that I tend to gravitate towards higher level languages by nature.
    > I use Perl religiously, and I love Java. If not for some of the speed
    > limitations and, more importantly, the fact that it's non-free, I would
    > say that Java is the perfect language. Hmm... is that gasoline I smell?
    > :)
    >
    >

    - --
    I sense much NT in you.
    NT leads to Bluescreen.
    Bluescreen leads to downtime.
    Downtime leads to suffering.
    NT is the path to the darkside.
    Powerful Unix is.

    Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc
    Fingerprint: B3B9 D669 69C9 09EC 1BCD 835A FAF3 7A46 E4A3 280C

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQE/TFXH+vN6RuSjKAwRAqtwAJ9BgmxVuO7UZvwdMofzsYTq4guIkACcD9jI
    c+DW3CWqzTO24OjznYWYeyM=
    =2ghl
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Jacob Anawalt: "Re: Help me please with TAR"

    Relevant Pages

    • [LONG] Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed
      ... > the programmer who wants such features. ... the guiding principles in the evolution of the c++ language should be ... the problem with this is that ide must first be able to assume ... libraries to find the type declaration. ...
      (comp.lang.cpp)
    • Re: So confused with scheme options
      ... Well known Libraries ... Implementation Extensions ... language, what's an expected library function for most implementations, ... This is the "module" language of PLT, ...
      (comp.lang.scheme)
    • Re: Verbose functional languages?
      ... believe it will be difficult to surpass the practical success of OCaml ... are writing good libraries for it). ... because the language was pushed with marketing money. ... Existing FPL implementations like OCaml and Haskell bask in the glory ...
      (comp.lang.functional)
    • Re: So confused with scheme options
      ... tower of libraries and procedures. ... language, what's an expected library function for most implementations, ... extension of blah or whatever. ... This is the "module" language of PLT, ...
      (comp.lang.scheme)
    • Re: Why why why? (Was: Re: Vertical alignment of text within a DIV)
      ... but a full rendering implementation for every possible display ... Remember that back when these standards were written ... there was very little in terms of cross-platform display libraries. ... It's the 'any language' bit, ...
      (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)