Comments on: The fallacy of high-level languages http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/ Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:51:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Niklas Cholmkvist http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1796 Niklas Cholmkvist Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:24:28 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1796 But isn't the C# language owned by Microsoft? But isn’t the C# language owned by Microsoft?

]]> By: Jason Carr http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1543 Jason Carr Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:06:30 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1543 This is certainly interesting, though I have to disagree. With any programming language comes a learning curve, and I'm not convinced that the learning curve is any greater for a language like C# than C (in fact, I would argue in the opposite direction). The closer we come to representing common spoken language and real life within our programming languages, the easier and faster programming will be. Clearly, C is a lot farther away from this than many modern programming languages. To say that it is just as quick or quicker to develop in C as it is to develop in C# is to throw away much of the progress that has been made in recent years. It is painfully obvious that developing a straightforward Windows (or any other GUI-based) application is much, much quicker using a modern, truly object-oriented programming language than using C, for many reasons. Some of them include fewer lines of code, better representations of real world objects, easier to read code, better designer tools (IDE GUI tools), and event-based development. C was not designed for these approaches. Straight up it is quite odd and misplaced to argue that C is just as fast or faster for development than modern languages. We all struggle with finding our comfortable favorite languages and approaches and sticking to them, but in this industry we do not have the luxury of sitting back and relaxing where we are at. I'm afraid that's what you're encouraging and fighting for here. It seems pretty silly to me. This is certainly interesting, though I have to disagree. With any programming language comes a learning curve, and I’m not convinced that the learning curve is any greater for a language like C# than C (in fact, I would argue in the opposite direction). The closer we come to representing common spoken language and real life within our programming languages, the easier and faster programming will be. Clearly, C is a lot farther away from this than many modern programming languages.

To say that it is just as quick or quicker to develop in C as it is to develop in C# is to throw away much of the progress that has been made in recent years. It is painfully obvious that developing a straightforward Windows (or any other GUI-based) application is much, much quicker using a modern, truly object-oriented programming language than using C, for many reasons. Some of them include fewer lines of code, better representations of real world objects, easier to read code, better designer tools (IDE GUI tools), and event-based development. C was not designed for these approaches.

Straight up it is quite odd and misplaced to argue that C is just as fast or faster for development than modern languages. We all struggle with finding our comfortable favorite languages and approaches and sticking to them, but in this industry we do not have the luxury of sitting back and relaxing where we are at. I’m afraid that’s what you’re encouraging and fighting for here. It seems pretty silly to me.

]]> By: Mughal http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1441 Mughal Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:00:40 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1441 As for as the programmer is concern, language is only the tool, it depends how we utilize it. so in this regard assembly is the best giving us the full capability to handle pc's power. As for as the programmer is concern, language is only the tool, it depends how we utilize it. so in this regard assembly is the best giving us the full capability to handle pc’s power.

]]> By: xteraco http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1423 xteraco Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:46:38 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1423 I haven't read the comments, but I agree with this post. It seems that new fads are driving people to forget how powerful our old languages are. School teaches industry standard languages. CEO's decide the industry standard language, CEO's decide what language their coders use. CEO's have no business making this type of decision. Now because n00bs all learn Java as their first language (in schools), and learn that it is "right", they will accept nothing else. I need to start a blog, maybe I can meet more people like the original poster! =D I haven’t read the comments, but I agree with this post. It seems that new fads are driving people to forget how powerful our old languages are. School teaches industry standard languages. CEO’s decide the industry standard language, CEO’s decide what language their coders use. CEO’s have no business making this type of decision. Now because n00bs all learn Java as their first language (in schools), and learn that it is “right”, they will accept nothing else.

I need to start a blog, maybe I can meet more people like the original poster! =D

]]> By: JanC http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1415 JanC Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:06:35 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1415 Actually, using pointers is much easier to understand in assembler than it is in C, so you're right that higher level languages are the wrong way to develop software... ;-) PS: of course that's because the C syntax for using pointers is probably the worst and most inconsistent of any language in common use... Actually, using pointers is much easier to understand in assembler than it is in C, so you’re right that higher level languages are the wrong way to develop software… ;-)

PS: of course that’s because the C syntax for using pointers is probably the worst and most inconsistent of any language in common use…

]]> By: Steve http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1412 Steve Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:04:06 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1412 C is great. Python is great. Ruby is great. Heck, Java is great (I feel dirty saying that) ... assuming you have good programmers. I agree that bad programmers can hide in higher level languages much easier than in lower level ones and it's important to have good engineers working on a code base no matter what language it is in. I do have a hard time agreeing that higher level languages don't give you any productivity improvement. If that is really the case there is a lot of wasted time and effort writing and updating higher level languages ... and by higher level languages I mean anything above assembly. If your using the right tools assembly should be just as fast and easy to write as Ruby! If it isn't that easy, you must be doing it wrong ... right? :-) C is great. Python is great. Ruby is great. Heck, Java is great (I feel dirty saying that) … assuming you have good programmers. I agree that bad programmers can hide in higher level languages much easier than in lower level ones and it’s important to have good engineers working on a code base no matter what language it is in.
I do have a hard time agreeing that higher level languages don’t give you any productivity improvement. If that is really the case there is a lot of wasted time and effort writing and updating higher level languages … and by higher level languages I mean anything above assembly. If your using the right tools assembly should be just as fast and easy to write as Ruby! If it isn’t that easy, you must be doing it wrong … right? :-)

]]> By: glok twen http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1410 glok twen Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:17:51 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1410 @Kieran - agree i was commenting on an implication of the last paragraph. also agree on the difference between causation and correlation which the world often confuses. in that case, then, i'll say that in the OP's opinion, evidence seen indicates a correlation between c programmers and "trust"-worthiness. the evidence i have seen is that there is no reliable correlation between language coded in and "trust". instead, the factors more highly correlated with trust that i've observed are the ones listed. @Kieran – agree i was commenting on an implication of the last paragraph. also agree on the difference between causation and correlation which the world often confuses.

in that case, then, i’ll say that in the OP’s opinion, evidence seen indicates a correlation between c programmers and “trust”-worthiness. the evidence i have seen is that there is no reliable correlation between language coded in and “trust”. instead, the factors more highly correlated with trust that i’ve observed are the ones listed.

]]> By: Darcy http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1409 Darcy Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:14:01 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1409 Use the right tool for the job, and keep an open mind. That's my 2 cents. Quick and dirty 10 dialog recipe app? VB. PC game? C++. Solid state micro chip for specific embedded need, like a sensor? Assembler. If every experienced programmer would simply embrace the real world and use the right tool for the job, they wouldn't treat programming language/compiler choices like religion. Just get real, and be real. Use the right tool for the job, and keep an open mind. That’s my 2 cents. Quick and dirty 10 dialog recipe app? VB. PC game? C++. Solid state micro chip for specific embedded need, like a sensor? Assembler. If every experienced programmer would simply embrace the real world and use the right tool for the job, they wouldn’t treat programming language/compiler choices like religion. Just get real, and be real.

]]> By: Darcy http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1408 Darcy Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:13:04 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1408 Use the right tool for the job, and keep an open mind. That's my 2 cents. Quick and dirty 10 dialog recipe app? VB. PC game? C++. Solid state micro chip for specific embedded need, like a sensor? Assembler. If every experienced programmer would simply embrace the real world and use the right tool for the job, they wouldn't treat programming choices like religion. Just get real, and be real. Use the right tool for the job, and keep an open mind. That’s my 2 cents. Quick and dirty 10 dialog recipe app? VB. PC game? C++. Solid state micro chip for specific embedded need, like a sensor? Assembler. If every experienced programmer would simply embrace the real world and use the right tool for the job, they wouldn’t treat programming choices like religion. Just get real, and be real.

]]> By: Matt Elmer http://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/comment-page-2/#comment-1407 Matt Elmer Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:22:39 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200#comment-1407 On fluency in C and programmer competence: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html From an implementor of novel solutions: http://archive.gamespy.com/legacy/articles/devweek_c.shtm On fluency in C and programmer competence:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html

From an implementor of novel solutions:
http://archive.gamespy.com/legacy/articles/devweek_c.shtm

]]>