By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,466 Members | 1,032 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,466 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

C is best

P: n/a
C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
Yep
vg****@gmail.com wrote:
C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang
Is that the only reason you can think of why C is good?
Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
On 2008-04-29 00:20:27 +0200, Yep <yep@yepsaid:
vg****@gmail.com wrote:
>C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang

Is that the only reason you can think of why C is good?
It's actually a pretty good reason. If by hackers the troll means C
programming experts, which i assume for this post, then volume in
numbers can't be a bad thing. But it only stands with the previous
assumption though.

Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a
On Apr 29, 2:42*am, Alef Veld <a...@xs4all.nlwrote:
On 2008-04-29 00:20:27 +0200, Yep <yep@yepsaid:
vgn...@gmail.com wrote:
C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang
Is that the only reason you can think of why C is good?

It's actually a pretty good reason. If by hackers the troll means C
programming experts, which i assume for this post, then volume in
numbers can't be a bad thing. But it only stands with the previous
assumption though.
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-). The answer would then
go for why C is best ;-)
Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
Ricky said:

<snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).
It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:26:00 -0700, vgnsh2 wrote:
C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang
C can change your way of thinking, C gives every thing to make your self,
as mother is the first teacher of child just like C is the mother of all
hackers. through C we can understand computer. C is the best.
Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
I was recently hacking into the OpenSSH client (ssh) source code.
It is written in C, and although some code structuring choices are
debatable, thanks to C's explicit flow of control and "transparent
box" approach, it was a matter of minutes to figure out where to
change code. And the changes themeselves did not take long to
implement.
In the ssh client code functions are very long for no apparent reason
to me, and some structures are statically initialised where a dynamic
initialisation would probably have been best.
The change involved adding an extra option on the command line,
changing the password retrieval system and reordering the
authentication methods.
Not a big change, so as expected it did not take long to implement.
I have been programming in C, C++ Java and more recently Python.
Of all those languages, C is the only one where I can see how
productivity and expressiveness increase can be factually measured.
Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
vg****@gmail.com ha scritto:
C is the best because the hackers is most use the C lang
Here in Italy C is used for every computer programming exam.

OOP instead is with Java

C++ ... is dead...
Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
I wouldn't go as far to say C++ is dead. But certainly it has now
reached critical mass.
You'll soon find Python is replacing Java in many environments.
Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Apr 29, 11:15*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Ricky said:

<snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).

It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
best in what terms, you could have added many things like: expressive,
fast, good low level interface, etc etc. It depends on what you are
trying to do.
Jun 27 '08 #10

P: n/a
It is a very easy to measure it. Just like assembler.

And IMHO measurability is the attribute that makes or brakes a
language.

All languages subject to opinion (read hype) more than fact dies a
(slow/fast) death.
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
I found C's syntax is simpler than java and c++. I don't know which
one is the most powerful language but I think C will not die easily.
It is becoming increasingly popular for scientific applications.
I'm not very sure about the current trends in gaming industry because
even though many popular games have been made in C, every time I go to
game development forums I see people posting C++ codes.
Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
Ricky wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:15*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Ricky said:

<snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I
would like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).

It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

best in what terms, you could have added many things like: expressive,
fast, good low level interface, etc etc. It depends on what you are
trying to do.
In a recent interview Brian Kernighan (a close colleague of Dennis
Ritchie and a co-author with him for K&R) was asked about his
explanation for why C became as widely used as it did. He mentioned one
reason, in his opinion, was because C "hit a sweet spot" between very
low-level languages like assembler and Forth and more high-level
languages like LISP, Java etc.

This meant that with proper care it was possible to go as close to the
machine as any compiled language could, but with a little effort and
infrastructure, one could also write programs with fairly high
abstraction and platform independence. This allowed it to be used for a
relatively larger range of programs than other alternative languages in
those days. Assembler was very efficient but was getting difficult to
program and maintain large code bases with, and moreover had absolutely
no portability. BCPL and B suffered from being only thin layers over
assembler. COBOL and LISP were too high-level to consider writing
system code with, while FORTRAN (at that time) lacked many things like
pointers, separate compilation etc.

The success of C could probably be explained as an outcome of a flexible
yet portable language being developed at a time when a need for such a
language was acutely felt. The IBM PC advent also undoubtedly helped
C's reach and presence.

A web search for "Brian Kernighan interview" might get you the actual
interview.

Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
pereges wrote:
I found C's syntax is simpler than java and c++. I don't know which
one is the most powerful language [ ... ]
All three are Turing complete and hence, from a theoretical perspective,
capable of the same range of computation. Practically speaking they
each serve different niches and each is going to be around for at least
a decade more.

Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a
In article <fv**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>I found C's syntax is simpler than java and c++. I don't know which
one is the most powerful language [ ... ]
>All three are Turing complete and hence, from a theoretical perspective,
capable of the same range of computation.
That's true for one particular restricted meaning of "powerful", but
it is frequently used less formally. In the less formal sense, C++ is
clearly more powerful since it's a superset[*] of C, and I think most
people would also consider Java to be. But powerfulness is not
everything!
[*] Yes, I know.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a
Ricky said:
On Apr 29, 11:15 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Ricky said:

<snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).

It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.
best in what terms,
In whatever terms your original reply intended.
you could have added many things like: expressive,
fast, good low level interface, etc etc. It depends on what you are
trying to do.
Yes. What I was trying to do was give the subject all the gravity and
profundity of thought that it deserved, and I think I succeeded admirably.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #16

P: n/a
On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Ricky said:
On Apr 29, 11:15 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Ricky said:
<snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).
It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.
best in what terms,

In whatever terms your original reply intended.
you could have added many things like: expressive,
fast, good low level interface, etc etc. It depends on what you are
trying to do.

Yes. What I was trying to do was give the subject all the gravity and
profundity of thought that it deserved, and I think I succeeded admirably.

I don't. I think you used far too much gravity and profundity of
thought.

-William Hughes
Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
William Hughes <wp*******@hotmail.comwrites:
On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Ricky said:
On Apr 29, 11:15 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Ricky said:
><snip>
If C is best because hackers (expert programmers) use it, then I would
like to stress on - Why do hackers use it :-).
>It's obvious - they use it because it's the best.
best in what terms,

In whatever terms your original reply intended.
you could have added many things like: expressive,
fast, good low level interface, etc etc. It depends on what you are
trying to do.

Yes. What I was trying to do was give the subject all the gravity and
profundity of thought that it deserved, and I think I succeeded admirably.


I don't. I think you used far too much gravity and profundity of
thought.

-William Hughes
In addition, hackers are almost never the best programmers. Usually they
are the worst programmers. Hacking and programming are not synonymous.
Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:

<snip>
In addition, hackers are almost never the best programmers.
Where is your data for this assertion, or is it just your opinion?
Usually they are the worst programmers.
And what makes you conclude this? Seems to me to be just FUD.
Hacking and programming are not synonymous.
If only we had as clear a definition for hacking as we have for
programming. There is no broadly accepted definition of the word
hacker.

Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:

<snip>
>In addition, hackers are almost never the best programmers.

Where is your data for this assertion, or is it just your opinion?
Years of working as a C programmer to be honest. Most hackers are just
that - hackers.
>Usually they are the worst programmers.

And what makes you conclude this? Seems to me to be just FUD.
There is a reason poor programmers and designers are called "hackers".
>
>Hacking and programming are not synonymous.

If only we had as clear a definition for hacking as we have for
programming. There is no broadly accepted definition of the word
hacker.
Yes there is.

When you work in an industry anyone referred to as a "hacker" is
generally to be avoided much as we can when possible.
Jun 27 '08 #20

P: n/a
Eligiusz Narutowicz said:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:

<snip>
>>In addition, hackers are almost never the best programmers.

Where is your data for this assertion, or is it just your opinion?

Years of working as a C programmer to be honest. Most hackers are just
that - hackers.
>>Usually they are the worst programmers.

And what makes you conclude this? Seems to me to be just FUD.

There is a reason poor programmers and designers are called "hackers".
Yes. There is a reason *good* programmers and designers are called
"hackers", too. That's the problem - there is no clear definition of the
term. RMS (one of the best programmers around - the author of gcc, gdb,
and the EMACS editorless operating system) thinks of himself as a hacker.
>>Hacking and programming are not synonymous.

If only we had as clear a definition for hacking as we have for
programming. There is no broadly accepted definition of the word
hacker.

Yes there is.
There are, in fact, at least eight broadly accepted definitions of the word
"hacker". See http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
When you work in an industry anyone referred to as a "hacker" is
generally to be avoided much as we can when possible.
And vice versa. To clarify: the kind of people that your kind of people
avoid are the kind of people that avoid your kind of people.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #21

P: n/a
Eligiusz Narutowicz<el*************@hotmail.comwrites:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>>
There is no broadly accepted definition of the word hacker.

Yes there is.
You are mistaken.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #22

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Eligiusz Narutowicz<el*************@hotmail.comwrites:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>>There is no broadly accepted definition of the word hacker.
Yes there is.

You are mistaken.
There are many broadly accepted definitions of the word "hacker".

;)

--
pete
Jun 27 '08 #23

P: n/a
On May 1, 11:04 am, Eligiusz Narutowicz<eligiuszdotn...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrites:
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
<snip>
In addition, hackers are almost never the best programmers.
Where is your data for this assertion, or is it just your opinion?

Years of working as a C programmer to be honest. Most hackers are just
that - hackers.
Usually they are the worst programmers.
And what makes you conclude this? Seems to me to be just FUD.

There is a reason poor programmers and designers are called "hackers".
Hacking and programming are not synonymous.
If only we had as clear a definition for hacking as we have for
programming. There is no broadly accepted definition of the word
hacker.

Yes there is.

When you work in an industry anyone referred to as a "hacker" is
generally to be avoided much as we can when possible.
You, as an long-time programmer (as you claim to be), are probably
thinking about the sense of the word "hack" that is used when
something in an application is done in a tricky, quick, inconvenient
and/or unstructured way. Thus, you'd be saying that a "hacker" is
someone that does that continuously. But that's not the only meaning
of the word "hack", as everyone has already pointed out, so you can't
say that that's the only thing (or merely one of the things) that
characterizes a hacker.

Years of working as a C programmer to be honest. Most hackers are just
that - hackers.
You could also say things like "a programmer is only a programmer," or
"a hero is just a hero," or even "God is only God." But what's your
point?
Jun 27 '08 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.