Programming

15584 readers

1 users here now

All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Hexorg@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Programming languages are unconvincing (atleast C++, Java and its ilk, Smalltalk, Lisp) (leminal.space)

submitted 1 week ago by tetrislife@leminal.space to c/programming@beehaw.org

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I feel proponents of any programming language put a lot of spin around what isolated aspects it is good for, but fail to illustrate what a programmer in even one target domain gains from using it.

Are there programming language implementations unlike what is described above, that you feel back up their marketing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just as an example, neither the C++ documentation nor its sagely bloggers have ever shown why it is a good fit for, say, systems programming. A really neat way of handling bit-level data is actually in Erlang's bit syntax.

Erlang requires a runtime environment, which disqualifies it for situations where you don't have a filesystem to load the runtime from, like developing a kernel or for microcontrollers.
Of the popular languages, your choices are virtually just C, C++ and Rust for that.

More towards your general question: Not needing a runtime environment also means you can use C, C++ and Rust for cross-language libraries. For example, SQLite and OpenSSL have just been implemented once in C, and then you simply have a thin wrapper for Java, Python etc..
If you are looking to build a library that can be used by as many devs as possible, that's a selling point which is hard to ignore.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wasn't thinking not needing a runtime is a language feature. After all, needing a runtime hasn't prevented Erlang from running on microcontrollers (Atom VM, GriSP); or Python either.

Basically, C++ and its ilk have no language feature for their purported stronghold of systems programming. Inertia isn't a language feature unless the language has actual features (like, say, Common Lisp).

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You picked out my one argument where you have a (weak) counterargument and then declare there's no other arguments. Does not sound like you want to understand...

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I did you the courtesy of replying with a bit of info about Erlang, even though you weren't addressing the actual point about lack of language features like Erlang's. BTW, by conceding that the argument for C++ on microcontrollers is weak given other languages doing better on that front, you are conceding that C++ doesn't have features to help systems programming.

Arguments are being made for language platform features when the question of language features comes up. I doubt it has to do with people not understanding the question.

More likely just scratching heads to find atleast 1 useful C++ (or any other mentioned language) feature that actually is useful to the domains professed to be "supported". This isn't an attack, I am in this boat too! The utility of its language features seems to be no more than "atleast it is not assembly".