By aroman07
via andromeda.com
Published: Dec 10 2007 / 16:17
![]() | |
| HTML5 Canvas | |
| Written by: Simon Sarris | |
| Featured Refcardz: Top Refcardz: | |
| 150+ Refcardz Available · Get them all | |
By aroman07
via andromeda.com
Published: Dec 10 2007 / 16:17
Comments
palsforpals replied ago:
Although its more that 10 points he mentions...and the first ones are pretty childish... But some of those mentioned near the end are quite true
ferruccio replied ago:
Summary: don't try to write C code if you don't know C. Most of these are really silly until #17.
dzonelurker replied ago:
Yes. Overall, C programming is easier than Java programming.
wittgen replied ago:
are you mental?
dzonelurker replied ago:
I'm experienced in both languages, Java and C. Of course, C is easier.
wittgen replied ago:
If by easier you mean a smaller language, then yes it is. If you need to write interface drivers for linux, then yes it is. If you have a desire to work with pointers and memory allocation, then yes it is. And so on.
Rickasaurus replied ago:
C is simple but it gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself with. Good programming practices and self discipline are essential.
Anyway, I found this article to be kind of vague. I wish it spent more time on each example. Describing what exactly the problem with each example was and maybe giving some suggestions on how to avoid the problem in the first place would make this a much better article.
,
wittgen replied ago:
I would call C simple, yes. But it is not simplistic. It has its uses, but if it was an "easier" language than java, it would be used for java-like purposes. But it isn't. Even if I wanted to write a utlity for a small day to day task, C would be way down the list, after a bash script, then perl, awk, python, even PHP is not so bad as a command line language. Why bother with the inconvenience when you have specialised languages. That's the problem with C, it's too low level to be a handy everyday tool. Great for systems level stuff, otherwise avoided unless you are a C expert.
Voters For This Link (11)
Voters Against This Link (9)