Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
General Development "For years I've tried my damnedest to get away from C. Too simple, too many details to manage, too old and crufty, too low level. I've had intense and torrid love affairs with Java, C++, and Erlang. I've built things I'm proud of with all of them, and yet each has broken my heart. They've made promises they couldn't keep, created cultures that focus on the wrong things, and made devastating tradeoffs that eventually make you suffer painfully. And I keep crawling back to C."
Thread beginning with comment 548392
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
C++ could be bypassed
by fithisux on Fri 11th Jan 2013 15:28 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

You can use ObjC/C/Asm for low level and build everything high-level with other languages. Ocaml is an example, ruby is another example and Go is yet another example. You can have a stack that does not use C++. But high-level languages are useful for large scale programming. Unfortunately there is no standard IMHO that allows to write a library in Pascal/Ocaml/C/Asm or Guile and re-use it by the others. This is unfortunate. For example it does not make sense to waste man months writing an xml library in C (it can be done optionally) when you can write it in Go. It makes no sense to write a proof system in C when you can do it in Ocaml and so on. Scripting languages are also another essential ingredient.

I believe that the main problem is the hardware and not the complexity that fostered C++. Fix the hardware in order to simplify the low level and use high level languages to build the stack. I could use C to interface to PCI and build a TCP/IP stack in Go in order to make it available to other consumers or even C. The main problem is that companies want to maintain the profit margin in HW and make bad hardware. Why should I ever need a driver for the printer if I could write it in user space with Ocaml and some C libraries via TCP/IP or a Wireless interface.

The complexity grows, the tools are there but the companies don't get it. Bad hardware costs manhours and makes life tougher.

Edited 2013-01-11 15:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: C++ could be bypassed
by saso on Fri 11th Jan 2013 16:55 in reply to "C++ could be bypassed"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Fix the hardware in order to simplify the low level and use high level languages to build the stack.

Are you suggesting we build hardware that interprets high-level code directly? Do you realize that this makes CPU design nearly impossibly complex? Even the handful of Java processors and VLIW processors that have been built still execute relatively low-level "bytecode" instructions that are nowhere near abstract language complexity levels.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: C++ could be bypassed
by tylerdurden on Fri 11th Jan 2013 19:51 in reply to "C++ could be bypassed"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Perhaps the problem is that you may have a very poor (or lacking) understanding of computer architecture.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: C++ could be bypassed
by moondevil on Fri 11th Jan 2013 19:58 in reply to "C++ could be bypassed"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Unfortunately there is no standard IMHO that allows to write a library in Pascal/Ocaml/C/Asm or Guile and re-use it by the others


The AS/400 mainframes use bytecode (ILE) as program format with the JIT integrated into the kernel.

The code gets JITted and cached in the executable, either on the first use or on demand.

Additionally the code might be regenerated if required.

This was kind of the route Microsoft was trying with everything .NET on Vista.

Now lets see where WinRT (COM ABI) goes.

Reply Parent Score: 3