That doesn't mean of course C inventors were stupid. They did their best at the time, for use case then, but today C standard=unproductive
-
-
Productivity is all about the programmer, not the language. Langs like C++/java/etc focused on rapid production of quantity, not quality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyc_symas @rinon and
This needs more evidence, as research done in LM showed that groups of similar programmer produced better results in Ada than in C++.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I have no dispute with that. C++ is garbage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyc_symas @rinon and
I think that many of the problems that hinder productivity in C++ are relevant for C, I can similar research for C, I'm sure there is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Howard Chu Retweeted Howard Chu
Howard Chu added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hyc_symas @elazarl and
To write in C++, you have to think about C++. To write in C, you only have to think about the problem you're solving.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hyc_symas @rinon and
what about multiplying two singed integers without UB. Even experts sometimes need reference for those. And there's more...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @elazarl @hyc_symas and
UB is a bit of a red herring here. Even w/o overflow UB, you have dangerous wrong results for fixed-size int types.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichFelker @elazarl and
I've always wondered why CPU makers ever implemented Nbit x Nbit = Nbit multiply instructions, instead of Nbit x Nbit = 2Nbit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
They usually do the latter. Problem is lack of arbitrarily large types.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.