Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]
by sureaboutthis on Thursday April 25, 2019 @08:40AM
(#19747415)
And yet I'm betting your language is run through a C program on its way to being interpreted or compiled.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
That is the unfortunate reality of having UNIX being widespread.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:54PM
(#19750750)
Windows is the fault of UNIX? I'm skeptical.
Windows is not a pile of C code, rather C, C++ and .NET.
And nowadays C code is considered legacy, with C#, Rust and constrained C++ as the road to the future.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]
by sureaboutthis on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:20PM
(#19750336)
It's not unfortunate. If it was a bad thing, UNIX wouldn't be so widespread.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]
by ernst_klim on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:33PM
(#19750497)
>If it was a bad thing, UNIX wouldn't be so widespread.
Strange argument. Javascript is widespread, COBOL was widespread, Windows is widespread, X86 is widespread. Widespread doesn't mean good. UNIX was a disaster, and the whole family of UNIX-like OS spent decades just for mitigate its errors and faults.
I guess we have someone here that enjoys using PHP, JavaScript and Perl.
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]
by sureaboutthis on Thursday April 25, 2019 @03:25PM
(#19751631)
As a UNIX professional programmer, no. Other than Perl, which I don't use, why would you think that?
Same set of language design qualities and being widespead due to historical accident.