Programming

why do we need this fancy 'C' language, when we could just write everything in assembly?

by god, you've solved all of the world's problems! give this man a novel peace prize!

The biggest benefits of different programming languages, frameworks and technologies is to reduce code complexity. Sure, it's possible to write all the code in C or even Assembly; but at some point it doesnt become practical.

Everyone laughing in Rust

Why do you keep posting this exact same rant? I see that some posts are in different Lemmy communities and you've posted it at least once on hacker news, but you also posted it to this same community already (https://snac.bsd.cafe/modev/p/1727338529.193499) and, although I can't find it now, I remember you posting it months ago, too.

Several of your posts that aren't about how C is being "suppressed" (which the responses to your post have repeatedly demonstrated isn't true) are about how you, personally, are still learning C and want more resources to learn it. And now you're also posting about Nelua and Nim. This is wild to me! Why do you have such strong opinions about a language that you're still learning? If you're that passionate about C and believe that people should use it instead of newer languages, why do you care about Nim or Nelua? If you're just trolling, why do you engage relatively patiently in the comments? And whatever your goal is, why do you keep reposting the same rants, especially this one that's now quite old?

Specifically ANSI C. All those new hipster features will never catch on.

As much as I don't like framework spam, especially when a lot of them are bloated and insecure or need bloated and insecure plugins/extentsions/whatever to do basic things, I have less desire than that to go to C.

that's one way to swing the pendulum all the way back to the 1970s

This is some fine trolling

It's time to return to the roots, the times when you used goto instead of function calls! Fortran and COBOL all the way! /s

Once you look beyond the "git gud" and "we must gatekeep programming from the normies" aspects of coding, you might want a language that is either way more productive than C (D), a language that offers memory safety and functional programming paradigms (Rust), or even a language that has relatively good portability even at the cost of performance (Javascript).

If you're only grumpy about Electron apps, then be mad at the corporations that:

• forced colleges and universities to teach Javascript and nothing else to students, so now we have programmers afraid of type declarations,
• jumped on the "Big Data" and "software as a service" train, so every app needed to be a "website", because "it's so convenient, pops no longer need to install wordprocessor dot exe, just type wordprocessor dot com into a browser".

Why do you think C is the one true language? It's a tool.

There's a single very simple answer to "what tool should I use?". Use the best tool for the job

The job is the objective - what are you trying to accomplish? What are your priorities? What compromise is best between time, cost, and quality? What are your abilities? What's in your toolbox right now, and what could you obtain within the time frame?

For you, the best tool might always be C. I don't know how you've specialized or what you do, but C is powerful. Maybe you have an orderly thought process code meticulously, maybe you struggle to learn new languages. Maybe there's just no better option for the jobs you take on

For me, C is rarely the answer. Not never, but outside of school I can count on one hand how many times I've chosen it. I code intuitively and feel how the code fits together, I can pick up languages on the spot and switch even more easily. But I'm not meticulous, it's against my nature. I make mistakes frequently - but I learn by doing, and I don't need to understand to start doing

All that said, why do we keep making languages and frameworks? Because as programmers, we build the tools. We can also share them without losing them. The perfect tool for one job won't be the same for any other job, but a pretty good tool for many jobs is a valuable tool

The trade-off with our tools is between power, versatility, and cost (generally being time). We all want powerful and versatile tools - but our time is limited, and so we can't afford the cost

Ultimately, I think you've correctly spotted a recurring problem but misidentified the cause. The cause isn't the tools, it's the fact that the cost is someone else's time. And the fact we have no way to translate money into their time

A corporation can fund a team to continuously develop a tool they rely on. An individual can't - we could chip in a few bucks here and there, but we use a lot of tools. We don't know good tools from bad ones until we use them, we don't know what tools are used to build the ones we need either.

So everyone and their mom wants to build a service to fund work on their tools. I hate services, I don't want to give them my data or my money - I want tools that will work on my devices, not because I don't want to deny them pay for their work, but because I pick up, drop, and modify tools all the time

That's the real problem - if I could donate x dollars a month to support the tools I use, I would. If I could choose for us all to pay more taxes to support the tools we all use, I would take that deal. Hell, I'd go through the effort to generalize my personal tools

Instead, the only real profit to be had in OSS comes from companies, because they can afford to fund them directly, or services, which individuals tend to hate but companies barely notice. The tools aren't the problem - the economics are the problem