I very much dislike C. I find many of its concepts hard to understand, especially the use of pointers and memory management. It's just not a high-enough programming language for what I want to do. Of all of the languages that I have run across (admittedly not that many) I prefer PL/I. It has a formal definition, with very little "implementation defined" stuff. In my thinking, C does the easy stuff while leaving me to do the hard stuff, and it's just the opposite with PL/I. Yes, I realize it is hard to write a compiler for, which does limit its availability, although there is now a very good implementation for Intel Linux for free. Just my $0.02 worth of course. DJ
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 2:30 PM Rick Troth <[email protected]> wrote: > Or maybe "limber" instead of "limbo", meaning flexible. But puns and > analogies always break down in the end. I have come to accept that. > > Started this before I left town for a few days. > It's initially knee-jerk, but seemed worth saying. > > I do love HLASM, and I miss it in my current role. > What's so great about it? Well, like with any assembler, you get full > control of the machine (within constraints: privileged mode or not, > stuff like that). > I've known other assemblers (I mean for other architectures) and enjoyed > them. But none were as robust. That's partly because of the assemblers > themselves, but also because of the architectures. Z is Z. > > I love C (and I don't miss it: it's everywhere). > But then, I refuse to step into "obfuscations" and other trickery that > some C coders love to dabble in. You know, keep it simple! > What I like about C is that it gets me as close as possible to the > machine and yet remain highly portable. You say C code is not portable? > Au contraire! I can demonstrate that it is (or that it "can be"). > Other assemblers are not as much fun as HLASM. I can avoid them when I > use C. > > Don't get me started about C++. > Some love it, but it's a different language. If you really want C++ > maybe consider Java. > > This is what tripped me up: > > > Beyond all the fighting here, just be glad the assembler macro > language is so powerful. > > Every time I have to do something in C that call out for a macro, I'm > appalled at how pathetic that language is! > > I've spoken with PHSiii about his post, and he was talking more about > the C pre-processor (where I mostly concur, it's kinda sucky) than about > C the language. > But there are plenty people who truly dislike C from all sides. I've > become sensitive after reading a lot of C bashing (not on this list, but > in other fora). > > Critique of the language, and especially of what some call "macros", I > willingly accept. > It's that P-word adjective that really bites. (pathetic) > Where else can I find anything as close to the hardware and yet not > directly ISA-bound? That's anything but pathetic. > > *instruction-set architecture > > Indeed, HLSAM has a powerful macro feature. > By comparison, C has a "pre-processor". I use it for a handful of > symbolic constants. Beyond that, it uglifies my code, so I avoid it. > > There's no accounting for taste, but C is a very good language, > especially for HLASM fans. > If one just doesn't like the language, that's a matter of taste. I hope > that we all can steer clear of languages we dislike. > Seriously, if you just don't like C then I hope you never have to use > it. But let's not engage in language flame wars. > I'd like to think that I'm somewhat broad minded: I hate Java, but not > the language, rather the requirement for the JVM and the ecosystem which > has grown up around it. > > *Java was a language looking for a purpose, then found popularity when > the web was young > > It's possible to write ugly pathetically byzantine unmaintainable code > in C. > It's possible to write ugly pathetically byzantine unmaintainable code > in HLASM. > > C takes a lot of flack these days, as people are (or claim to be) very > concerned about security (while protecting the WRONG THINGS, but I > digress). > Buffer overruns and other such things lead the charge as they look for > "safe" languages. Something about guns and feet might fit here, or the > Kilpatrick to Alexander spoof from the movie Airplane. (James Kilpatrick > played by William Tregoe with Shana Alexander off-screen. You know the > one!) "They bought their compilers. They knew what they were getting into!" > > Ironic that none of these C haters (in the field, not on this list) > throw a single dart at assembler. Why is that? > > The up-and-coming "safe" language intended for "systems" is Rust. > Who thought up that name? What did they want to convey? Maybe they think > "systems" level coding is old and weathered and ... er, uh ... rusty? > But I am trying to have Rust (compiler) in my doctor's bag-o-tricks. > It's almost as difficult to build as LLVM and 'clang'. > Rust enjoys growing popularity because it is touted as a "systems" > language without the risks of C (like for stepping on your own memory, > y'all have heard the stories). > That takes me back to the reason I *like* C: it lets me do much of what > I can do in assembler (stepping on my own memory) but somewhat portably. > > Question: if Rust is "safe" will it actually let me flip bits with the > same precision as C? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhU7Fgw5PmI > > > -- R; <>< >
