I'm not sure how you can say that knowledge of assembly/hardware is obsolete. Perhaps unneeded for tasks that most programmers have in our hip new ad-driven world, but someone still has to understand and write the code that runs the code that eventually puts the cat-based meme on your screen.

Engineers seldom use calculus, but they used derived functions every day. The same applies to programming, everyone who programs should be exposed to the low level innards enough to at least take the magic away and have a basic concept of what a computer actually does. You'll be better for it.

That's funny, because 97% of the Linux kernel (the code that implements the things you mentioned) is written in C.

I think you're getting confused by the fact that C has a standard library, so it's true that you don't have to write process spawning yourself. But the standard library is written mostly in C and calls into an OS that is written mostly in C. So C's computational model can indeed explain how low-level things work.

The C standard even defines a "freestanding implementation," which is a C platform that has no access to an OS. So C-the-language can work without any OS at all, and without any runtime/interpreter that is filling the role of a traditional OS. Very few languages can say that, and indeed it's the reason why it makes sense to develop an OS in the language. To write an OS in a language that requires an OS begs the question.

As for process spawning, I/O, etc.: it might be that C is just as good as assembly for those, but I would be surprised if either was sufficient. Presumably that's where "hardware and OS-related literature" comes in.

Damn right it's good--for me--that most programmers think low-level programming/machine knowledge is obsolete. I'm pretty certain it means I'll never want for a (good) job as long as I can still think and move enough to edit code.

getchar(); //C STDIN.getc //Ruby getChar //Haskell System.in.read(); //java How do any of those show me how software works under the hood? In none of them do I have any clue how a character makes it from my terminal to my program.

int* a; Teaches me nothing about caches, memory latency, NUMA etc. Hell, dereferences are even guarantied to read the same physical location in memory(just the same logical location.)

struct stuff{ int a; int b; };

Doesn't teach me anything about memory layout. C assumes you are running on some hardware from the 70s, it doesn't know about virtual memory, address spaces, memory pages, NUMA, ram with multiple channels, the no execute bit, GPGPU programming. The only thing C has going for it is simplicity.

Maybe not, but this does: offsetof(struct stuff, a); offsetof(struct stuff, b); sizeof(struct stuff);

> C assumes you are running on some hardware from the 70s, it doesn't know about virtual memory, address spaces, memory pages, NUMA, ram with multiple channels, the no execute bit, GPGPU programming.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about; virtual memory is explicitly designed so that no code (even assembly language) "knows" about it except for the very small amount of code that sets it up. Likewise with most of the features you are mentioning. A memory reference in C operates at about the same level of abstraction in C as it does in assembly language, which is the lowest-level software interface available.

But it's an interesting /kind/ of simplicity.

FORTRAN is simple, for instance. Yet we don't use it much any more.

C is simple enough to not make you go bananas trying to learn the language [C++], but rich enough that you don't go bananas solving large, interesting problems [assembly]. It pretty much nailed the uncanny valley of just complex enough.

It's a bit creaky. It desperately needs namespaces. I'm on the fence about memory models (this is a platform thing, in my mind), and definitely Do Not Want threads jammed into the language. I would love a decent macro language, but that's probably a decade-long debate (if what happened in the Scheme community is any indication). I would love a compilation system that didn't suck [yes, macros and a Go-like build system probably don't mix well].

I've been writing C for over 30 years. I plan to keep writing it for another 20. The unscientific, neat thing about C is that it's /fun/. I know this doesn't go over well with standards types and cow-orkers who feel the urge to override operator = and take dependencies on Koenig lookup all the time, but C has a charm that other, similar languages have been unable to capture.

Computing is like an iceberg, with the web being the bit above the surface.

rich enough that you don't go bananas solving large, interesting problems [assembly]

Two words: macro assembler. It may surprise you to know that not that long ago, sophisticated GUI apps were written in assembly language (in fact the IDE I use on my ST, Devpac, was written in assembly, and it's everything you would expect of a modern IDE - editor, compiler, debugger, etc - running under GEM). Many games were written in pure ASM.

This doesn't get you away from the ooky stuff that C does for you, like register allocation and code optimization (link time code generation is a wonderful thing, even for C). Very few assmeblers are bright enough -- or should be trusted enough -- to do code motion, strength reduction, common subexpression analysis. And, oh bog, just writing a plain expression? Not even possible in a macro assembler.

[I rewrote the ST's file system in assembly, btw. It started out as an honest effort, then got bogged down in stuff that would have been a no-brainer in C.]

Personally I haven't done any assembly programming in atleast the past 6-7 years but I still get the urge now and then to program in it again. However, even though it's unlikely that happens, my assembly experience has given me a thorough understanding of how the computer works at a basic instruction/memory level which has been extremely valuable when I want to create optimized code in higher level languages (like C). So yes, while learning C is certainly worthwhile even if you are going to write in even higher level languages, learning or atleast graping the fundamentals of assembly is in my opinion even better.

Why have a type system that includes implicit coercions between types, sometimes with different internal representations? (Just imagine an int promoting to a float.) Doesn't that obscure the "real meaning" of the program, or is it merely a detail you find uninteresting? C is not the only language that makes these low-level concepts accessible, and C does not represent the "floor" with respect to making the behavior of hardware explicit.

If what you're actually getting at is that C is the most popular language today that exposes all of those things, it sounds less convincing- Systems languages cannot advance if we take C's position as given.

This isn't less convincing to me, I would never argue that someone learn C instead of all other languages. But I do believe that knowing C makes you a better programmer in all (current popular production) languages.

Re: your point about systems programming not advancing...I didn't mean to imply that C was "perfect" (in the Latin sense, meaning "done, finished"), just that it's the best we have for many things.

I do really like Go, and wish I could use it more, for non-personal projects.

You've never written C.

Well yes, but you're talking about library code there. Your code, which links in libraries, will never fully describe those libraries.

But that library code was very likely written in C...so...