“C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success”

Re:“C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success” – Dennis R... by xyzzy_plugh on Sunday July 09, 2023 @09:00AM (#36654130)

You're talking about something that isn't related to efficiency. Copy and pasting, macros, generating code -- none of these preclude producing an efficient solution.

There is nothing in C++ that is inherently more efficient than C.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success” – Dennis R... by dermesser on Sunday July 09, 2023 @09:30AM (#36654316)

Except that more efficient solutions can be implemented much more practically? Solutions that you'd need to bend over backwards for in C?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success” – Dennis R... by xyzzy_plugh on Monday July 10, 2023 @08:10AM (#36665202)

What does that have to do with efficiency? We don't appear to be debating language ergonomics, but the notion that C is somehow inferior to C++ when it comes to performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success” – Dennis R... by humanrebar on Sunday July 09, 2023 @12:35PM (#36655945)

C++ has a lot of compile time programming features that C cannot do practically. There are sometimes alternatives to those mechanisms in C, but they rely on mangling, macros, non-portable tricks, and so on.

On the topic of performance, the best counterargument to C++ from a C perspective would be that hand rolled code generation isn't all that bad in practice. It's just language theorists don't like that approach aesthetically.

[ Parent | on HN ]