7 ms·

You are again misreading even the most clearly put statement. Compared to e.g. Javascript, C is "closer" to the hardware, gives you "more control" of it. It wou

You are again misreading even the most clearly put statement. Compared to e.g. Javascript, C is "closer" to the hardware, gives you "more control" of it. It would be completely ridiculous to deny this fact. And if you move to e.g. C# / Java or similar, if you squint, and you try to be a smart-arse, then you could deny that C is closer to the hardware than C#, because C# probably has everything you need to control it, to the same degree that C allows you to. But if you work in these languages for a while, and look at the code that you ended up producing, then again you will absolutely find that it would be ridiculous to not admit that C gives you better control. And you could even extend this to Rust, because the language encourages you to use high-level prefabricated components. It discourages you from doing low-level things, at least a little bit I think (I'm not a Rust user). I think what you are doing all the time, is you are being a smart-arse, nothing else. What interesting low-level performant things have you actually programmed lately?

pjmlp 1mo ago
Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript, instead of C vs C++, for example. And then coming with such lengthy ad hominem. Let make a fun exercise for the audience, given your performance remark. Paste a random C code that I should replicate in whatever language I feel like. There is one rule. If the sample code is pure ISO C, then I will only use what is in the standard of whatever language I pick up. If the sample code makes use of single language extension not part of ISO C, then I will have the freedom to also pick whatever language extensions I feel like.
- groundzeros2015 1mo ago
  > If the sample code makes use of single language extension not part of ISO C What are you even arguing right now? (Btw -ansi compiler flag) > Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript I chose JavaScript to make the idea of a spectrum clearer using extremes. I can do C++ if you like. The machine doesn’t care about destructors, move, concepts, initializer lists, virtual methods, launder, or inheritance. You are programming against an abstract model further divorced from how x86 CPUs work.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    That many features are not ISO, and any language can have extensions just like C, nothing special there. To me choosing JavaScript as example against C, feels like the Tiger Beetle guy that initially chose JavaScript and then went to Zig because JavaScript did not deliver, go figure. So many systems languages to chose from since 1958.
    - groundzeros2015 1mo ago
      This responds to nothing in my comment.
- jstimpfle 1mo ago
  So do you want to "rewrite" some C code in C++ to think you made a point? I think you should do C# or Java. What about you do xxHash? Should be quite basic, not a lot of complicated structures. https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/blob/dev/xxhash.h https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/blob/dev/xxhash.h Or what about you do an audio or video codec? Or an operating system? Not going to paste any of my own code, because any non-trivial stuff is hundreds to thousands of lines. But one more example (that I recently did myself): Create a block allocator (power of two blocks) with bookkeeping in shadow memory (administered in individually committed zones representing virtual memory regions of 64 MB (2^26)). Any used memory has bookkeeping support for being sub-allocated at any and all levels up from 64 KB (2^16) to 64 MB (2^26), and even higher (by joining committed regions). Individual blocks are collected (using intrinsic linking, because no memory allocation) in a hierarchy of pools of same-sized chunks that have the same parent, and can be recursively sub-allocated on any smaller chosen power-of-2 level, and finally be consumed in linear fashion (arenas). Blocks are pooled with a moderate retain policy (watermark system) to allow subsystems to almost completely avoid any system calls and avoid inter-thread synchronisation. The memory overhead must be below 1% even though it's totally flexible (as said has metadata for all levels from 64 KB up). The bookkeeping should function on 32-bit systems (small virtual space, occupancy range from megabytes to 3 GB) as well 64-bit systems (2^48-2^57 bytes of virtual address space, occupancy range from megabytes to hundreds of gigabytes) with reasonable overhead compared to actual usage. This requires intrusively linked lists, occupancy bitmasks, bit-counting and bit-prefix counting, OS syscall access (virtual memory), pointer arithmetic (alignment needed to address shadow bookkeeping memory) and thread synchronisation. The reference code is >> 95% pure ISO C++11 (could be C99 with few changes), with a little platform code glued in. It works on Windows but it could be ported to Linux in a few hours. It supports a mostly-immediate-mode GUI with hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of small variable-sized allocations per second. Allocation has almost completely disappeared from the CPU profile, well below 1% of CPU usage.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    I said any systems programming language, and stated the rules, so I gather you don't want to play this game after all. > Or what about you do an audio or video codec? Or an operating system? There are already plenty of examples out there, Claude can probably help you there regarding history of such products not written in C, or where C required help from Assembly code. You can start by researching IBM i, z/OS, OS 2200, Xerox Alto, DirectX and Metal (C++ for the most part, and Objective-C++ on the 2nd) > This requires intrusively linked lists,.... And the C99 version is impossible to be written in Ada95 because?
- Dylan16807 1mo ago
  > Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript, instead of C vs C++, for example. Using C++ as your other comparison point when arguing that C isn't low level is by far the most smartass idea in this thread.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    Not at all, because for C heads, C++ can't do what C does, for whatever imaginary reasons.
    - jstimpfle 1mo ago
      I challenge you to find one random person making that claim and to present it with a straight face. What kind of ghosts are you fighting?
      - Dylan16807 1mo ago
        Yeah, I see plenty of people complain that C++ can't be simple because devs will keep reaching into the cookie jar, but that's not the language being unable to do something C can. The only complaint I see about C++ not being capable is the correct observation that more platforms have C compilers than C++. Either way, C++ spans a big range that goes just as low level as C. Even if these complaints are real they don't make it a reasonable comparison point for the "C is actually high level" argument.
- nomel 1mo ago
  Requesting a block of system memory, by address, and writing to it. This is common with C, when interfacing with hardware.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    Define how you want to write to that system memory without OS syscall. What exact C code did you had in mind? So that the counter example is close enough to it in exposing the same semantics.
    - nomel 1mo ago
      [dead]
Someone 1mo ago
> But if you work in these languages for a while, and look at the code that you ended up producing, then again you will absolutely find that it would be ridiculous to not admit that C gives you better control. I disagree somewhat. C gives you better control, and you have to accept that gift to get anything done. The likes of (modern) C# give you better control, but you can reject the gift if you want, and program in higher abstractions. You can also accept it in some places and reject it in others. With C, you can reject the control, too, but then, you have to use third party libraries (or write them yourselves), and using those, your code looks less nice because it cannot escape C’s syntax (yes, macros help a bit there, but having real syntax beats it)
- jstimpfle 1mo ago
  Mind you, the "you can use this other way as you see fit" idea often isn't practical (like combining GC'ed and non-GC'ed parts). You generally want a whole codebase to be structured according to shared idioms. Otherwise the interfacing cost becomes too high. I have doubts that you can program easily in a C-style way in C# without adding lots of annotations everywhere in many places. But don't know, maybe I'm wrong, I did a search for a simple C-style arena allocator in C#, and it looked acceptable, it was quite close. The most annoying thing was maybe keyword boilerplate.

pjmlp 1mo ago

Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript, instead of C vs C++, for example. And then coming with such lengthy ad hominem. Let make a fun exercise for the audience, given your performance remark. Paste a random C code that I should replicate in whatever language I feel like. There is one rule. If the sample code is pure ISO C, then I will only use what is in the standard of whatever language I pick up. If the sample code makes use of single language extension not part of ISO C, then I will have the freedom to also pick whatever language extensions I feel like.

groundzeros2015 1mo ago
> If the sample code makes use of single language extension not part of ISO C What are you even arguing right now? (Btw -ansi compiler flag) > Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript I chose JavaScript to make the idea of a spectrum clearer using extremes. I can do C++ if you like. The machine doesn’t care about destructors, move, concepts, initializer lists, virtual methods, launder, or inheritance. You are programming against an abstract model further divorced from how x86 CPUs work.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  That many features are not ISO, and any language can have extensions just like C, nothing special there. To me choosing JavaScript as example against C, feels like the Tiger Beetle guy that initially chose JavaScript and then went to Zig because JavaScript did not deliver, go figure. So many systems languages to chose from since 1958.
  - groundzeros2015 1mo ago
    This responds to nothing in my comment.
jstimpfle 1mo ago
So do you want to "rewrite" some C code in C++ to think you made a point? I think you should do C# or Java. What about you do xxHash? Should be quite basic, not a lot of complicated structures. https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/blob/dev/xxhash.h https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/blob/dev/xxhash.h Or what about you do an audio or video codec? Or an operating system? Not going to paste any of my own code, because any non-trivial stuff is hundreds to thousands of lines. But one more example (that I recently did myself): Create a block allocator (power of two blocks) with bookkeeping in shadow memory (administered in individually committed zones representing virtual memory regions of 64 MB (2^26)). Any used memory has bookkeeping support for being sub-allocated at any and all levels up from 64 KB (2^16) to 64 MB (2^26), and even higher (by joining committed regions). Individual blocks are collected (using intrinsic linking, because no memory allocation) in a hierarchy of pools of same-sized chunks that have the same parent, and can be recursively sub-allocated on any smaller chosen power-of-2 level, and finally be consumed in linear fashion (arenas). Blocks are pooled with a moderate retain policy (watermark system) to allow subsystems to almost completely avoid any system calls and avoid inter-thread synchronisation. The memory overhead must be below 1% even though it's totally flexible (as said has metadata for all levels from 64 KB up). The bookkeeping should function on 32-bit systems (small virtual space, occupancy range from megabytes to 3 GB) as well 64-bit systems (2^48-2^57 bytes of virtual address space, occupancy range from megabytes to hundreds of gigabytes) with reasonable overhead compared to actual usage. This requires intrusively linked lists, occupancy bitmasks, bit-counting and bit-prefix counting, OS syscall access (virtual memory), pointer arithmetic (alignment needed to address shadow bookkeeping memory) and thread synchronisation. The reference code is >> 95% pure ISO C++11 (could be C99 with few changes), with a little platform code glued in. It works on Windows but it could be ported to Linux in a few hours. It supports a mostly-immediate-mode GUI with hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of small variable-sized allocations per second. Allocation has almost completely disappeared from the CPU profile, well below 1% of CPU usage.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  I said any systems programming language, and stated the rules, so I gather you don't want to play this game after all. > Or what about you do an audio or video codec? Or an operating system? There are already plenty of examples out there, Claude can probably help you there regarding history of such products not written in C, or where C required help from Assembly code. You can start by researching IBM i, z/OS, OS 2200, Xerox Alto, DirectX and Metal (C++ for the most part, and Objective-C++ on the 2nd) > This requires intrusively linked lists,.... And the C99 version is impossible to be written in Ada95 because?
Dylan16807 1mo ago
> Smart-arse is comparing C versus JavaScript, instead of C vs C++, for example. Using C++ as your other comparison point when arguing that C isn't low level is by far the most smartass idea in this thread.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  Not at all, because for C heads, C++ can't do what C does, for whatever imaginary reasons.
  - jstimpfle 1mo ago
    I challenge you to find one random person making that claim and to present it with a straight face. What kind of ghosts are you fighting?
    - Dylan16807 1mo ago
      Yeah, I see plenty of people complain that C++ can't be simple because devs will keep reaching into the cookie jar, but that's not the language being unable to do something C can. The only complaint I see about C++ not being capable is the correct observation that more platforms have C compilers than C++. Either way, C++ spans a big range that goes just as low level as C. Even if these complaints are real they don't make it a reasonable comparison point for the "C is actually high level" argument.
nomel 1mo ago
Requesting a block of system memory, by address, and writing to it. This is common with C, when interfacing with hardware.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  Define how you want to write to that system memory without OS syscall. What exact C code did you had in mind? So that the counter example is close enough to it in exposing the same semantics.
  - nomel 1mo ago
    [dead]

Someone 1mo ago

> But if you work in these languages for a while, and look at the code that you ended up producing, then again you will absolutely find that it would be ridiculous to not admit that C gives you better control. I disagree somewhat. C gives you better control, and you have to accept that gift to get anything done. The likes of (modern) C# give you better control, but you can reject the gift if you want, and program in higher abstractions. You can also accept it in some places and reject it in others. With C, you can reject the control, too, but then, you have to use third party libraries (or write them yourselves), and using those, your code looks less nice because it cannot escape C’s syntax (yes, macros help a bit there, but having real syntax beats it)

jstimpfle 1mo ago
Mind you, the "you can use this other way as you see fit" idea often isn't practical (like combining GC'ed and non-GC'ed parts). You generally want a whole codebase to be structured according to shared idioms. Otherwise the interfacing cost becomes too high. I have doubts that you can program easily in a C-style way in C# without adding lots of annotations everywhere in many places. But don't know, maybe I'm wrong, I did a search for a simple C-style arena allocator in C#, and it looked acceptable, it was quite close. The most annoying thing was maybe keyword boilerplate.