> What is interesting is that the apparent cleanliness of the code (it reads very well) is obscuring the fact that the quality is actually quite low.
I think this is a general feature and one of the greatest advantages of C. It's simple, and it reads well. Modern C++ and Rust are just horrible to look at.
I slightly unironically believe that one of the biggest hindrances to rust's growth is that it adopted the :: syntax from C++ rather than just using a single . for namespacing.
I believe that the fanatics in the rust community were the biggest factor. They turned me off what eventually became a decent language. There are some language particulars that were strange choices, but I get that if you want to start over you will try to get it all right this time around. But where the Go authors tried to make the step easy and kept their ego out of it, it feels as if the rust people aimed at creating a new temple rather than to just make a new tool. This created a massive chicken-and-the-egg problem that did not help adoption at all. Oh, and toolchain speed. For non-trivial projects for the longest time the rust toolchain was terribly slow.
I don't remember any other language's proponents actively attacking the users of other programming language.
> But where the Go authors tried to make the step easy and kept their ego out of it
That is very different to my memories of the past decade+ of working on Go.
Almost every single language decision they eventually caved on that I can think of (internal packages, vendoring, error wrapping, versioning, generics) was preceded by months if not years of arguing that it wasn't necessary, often followed by an implementation attempt that seems to be ever so slightly off just out of spite.
Let's don't forget that the original Go 1.0 expected every project's main branch to maintain backward compatibility forever or else downstreams would break, and without hacks (which eventually became vendoring) you could not build anything without an internet connection.
To be clear, I use Go (and C... and Rust) and I do like it on the whole (despite and for its flaws) but I don't think the Go authors are that different to the Rust authors. There are (unfortunately) more fanatics in the Rust community but I think there's also a degree to which some people see anything Rust-related as being an attack on other projects regardless of whether the Rust authors intended it to be that way.
Fair enough.
> I believe that the fanatics in the rust community were the biggest factor.
I second this; for a few years it was impossible to have any sort of discussion on various programming places when the topic was C: the conversation would get quickly derailed with accusations of "dinosaur", etc.
Things have gone quiet recently (last three years, though) and there have been much fewer derailments.
As an outsider, I don't really see Rust having done anything different recently than they weren't doing from the start.
What seems to have changed in recent years is the buy-in from corporations that seemingly see value in its promises of safety. This seems to be paired with a general pulling back of corporate support from the C++ world as well as a general recession of fresh faces, a change that at least from the sidelines seems to be mostly down to a series of standards committee own-goals.
I'm not sure that there is a recession of corporate support from C++. Just that the proportion of companies that need C++ is smaller than it once was.
I like the safety promise of Rust. But the complicated interop story with C and C++ hurt it a lot. I mean, in a typical codebase, what proportion of bugs will be memory-safety related vs other reasons? Ideally, we could just wrap the safety-critical bits in a memory-safe wrapper and continue to use C and C++ for everything else.
Being a C++ developer and trafficking mostly in C++ spaces, there is a phenomenon I've noticed that I've taken to calling Rust Derangement Syndrome. It's where C and C++ developers basically make Rust the butt of every joke, and make fun it it in a way that is completely outsized with how much they interact with Rust developers in the wild.
It's very strange to witness. Annoying advocacy of languages is nothing new. C++ was at one point one of those languages, then it was Java, then Python, then Node.js. I feel like if anything, Rust was a victim of a period of increased polarization on social media, which blew what might have been previously seen as simple microaggressions completely out of proportion.
I don't think Rust will ever be as big as C++ because there were fewer options back then.
These days Go/Zig/Nim/C#/Java/Python/JS and other languages are fast enough for most use cases.
And Rust learning curve doesn't help either. C++ was basically C with OOP on steroids. Rust is very different.
I say that because I wouldn't group Rust opposition with any of those languages you cited. It's different for mostly different reasons and magnitudes.
As someone that was there, a few things helped C++ adoption, and even then it wasn't without the C vs C++ flamewars that endure to these days.
- At the time, with a few minor differences, C++ was Typescript for C, thus very easy to adopt into existing projects
- Being born on the same birthplace as C and UNIX, meant all C compiler vendors saw as added value to have it as part of their offering, and it was natural that every UNIX SDK also had C++ support available alongside C.
- Apple, Metrowerks, IBM, Borland and Microsoft helped to push C++ adoption, by making it the official way to use application frameworks. MacApp (originally in Object Pascal), PowerPlant, CSet++, Turbo Vision/OWL/VCL, and MFC respectively.
This kept C++ as the language to go for performance in enterprise computing, while Delphi and VB got the "easy" development role, until Java and .NET took over all those frameworks.
Rust doesn't have this kind of industry wide push, even in OSes where it is being embraced like Windows and Android, note that it isn't being pushed as yet another way to write userspace applications, rather low level OS services.
> Rust doesn't have this kind of industry wide push, even in OSes where it is being embraced like Windows and Android, note that it isn't being pushed as yet another way to write userspace applications, rather low level OS services.
This seems apropos in a world where C++ has been bleeding userspace buy-in for longer than I've been professionally programming.
I started learning Rust a few months ago in an attempt to teach an old dog new tricks, and while it's quite pleasant as far as it went, I can think of several classes of programs that I would be reluctant to use the language for. But I wouldn't dream of using C++ for those types of programs either.
There are rumors floating around that Microsoft is rolling their own rustc-codegen-gcc paired with their C2 codegen backend. Don't know what to make of those rumors, but it helped to reassure me to feel like the time I invested thus far hasn't been wasted.
Not sure about the new backend, but they are indeed quite invested.
"From Blue Screens to Orange Crabs: Microsoft's Rusty Revolution"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDtMuS7BExE
Software vulnerabilities are an implicit form of harassment.
I'm hoping that's meant to satirise the rust community, because it's horseshit like this that makes a sizeable subset of rust evangelists unbearable.
> I don't remember any other language's proponents actively attacking the users of other programming language.
I just saw someone on Hacker News saying that Rust was a bad language because of its users
Yawn. Really, if you have nothing to say don't do it here.
Gotcha hypocrisy might be a really cheap thing to point out, but they're not wrong.
I have noticed my fair share of Rust Derangement Syndrome in C++ spaces that seems completely outsized from the series of microaggressions that they eventually point out when asked "Why?"
It’s interesting, over the past 15 years I’ve had occasion to work with other c/c++ devs on various contracts, probably 50ish distinct different companies. Not once has rust even come up in casual conversation.
I'm probably a little younger than you, so it's likely a generational thing. I also notice it's a lot more pervasive in internet-driven watercoolers than face to face.
The safer the C code, the more horrible it starts looking though... e.g.
I don't understand why people think this is safer, it's the complete opposite.
With that `char msg[static 1]` you're telling the compiler that `msg` can't possibly be NULL, which means it will optimize away any NULL check you put in the function. But it will still happily call it with a pointer that could be NULL, with no warnings whatsoever.
The end result is that with an "unsafe" `char *msg`, you can at least handle the case of `msg` being NULL. With the "safe" `char msg[static 1]` there's nothing you can do -- if you receive NULL, you're screwed, no way of guarding against it.
For a demonstration, see[1]. Both gcc and clang are passed `-Wall -Wextra`. Note that the NULL check is removed in the "safe" version (check the assembly). See also the gcc warning about the "useless" NULL check ("'nonnull' argument 'p' compared to NULL"), and worse, the lack of warnings in clang. And finally, note that neither gcc or clang warn about the call to the "safe" function with a pointer that could be NULL.
[1] https://godbolt.org/z/qz6cYPY73
> I don't understand why people think this is safer, it's the complete opposite.
Yup, and I don't even need to check your godbolt link - I've had this happen to me once. It's the implicit casting that makes it a problem. You cannot even typedef it away as a new type (the casting still happens).
The real solution is to create and use opaque types. In this case, wrapping the `char[1]` in a struct would almost certainly generate compilation errors if any caller passed the wrong thing in the `char[1]` field.
Compared to other languages, this is still nice.
It is - like everything else - nice because you, me and lots of others are used to it. But I remember starting out with C and thinking 'holy crap, this is ugly'. After 40+ years looking at a particular language it no longer looks ugly simply because of familiarity. But to a newcomer C would still look quite strange and intimidating.
And this goes for almost all programming languages. Each and every one of them has warts and issues with syntax and expressiveness. That holds true even for the most advanced languages in the field, Haskell, Erlang, Lisp and more so for languages that were originally designed for 'readability'. Programming is by its very nature more akin to solving a puzzle than to describing something. The puzzle is to how to get the machine to do something, to do it correctly, to do it safely and to do it efficiently, and all of those while satisfying the constraint of how much time you are prepared (or allowed) to spend on it. Picking the 'right' language will always be a compromise on some of these, there is no programming language that is perfect (or even just 'the best' or 'suitable') for all tasks, and there are no programming languages that are better than any other for any subset of all tasks until 'tasks' is a very low number.
I agree that the first reaction usually is only about what one is used to. I have seen this many times. Still, of course, not all syntax is equally good.
For example, the problem with Vec<Vec<T>> for a 2D array is not that one is not used to it, but that the syntax is just badly designed. Not that C would not have problematic syntax, but I still think it is fairly good in comparison.
C has one massive advantage over many other languages: it is just a slight level above assembler and it is just about as minimal as a language can be. It doesn't force you into an eco-system, plays nice with lots of other tools and languages and gets out of the way. 'modern' languages, such as Java, Rust, Python, Javascript (Node) and so on all require you to buy in to the whole menu, they're not 'just a language' (even if some of them started out like that).
Not forcing you into an eco-system is what makes C special, unique and powerful, and this aspect is not well understood by most critics. Stephen Kell wrote a great essay about it.
Meanwhile, in Modula-2 from 1978, that would be
Now you can use LOW() and HIGH() to get the lower and upper bounds, and naturally bounds checked unless you disabled them, locally or globaly.This should not be downvoted, it is both factually correct and a perfect illustration of these problems already being solved and ages ago at that.
It is as if just pointing this out already antagonizes people.
A certain group of people likes to pretend before C there were no other systems programming languages, other than BCPL.
Ignoring what happened since 1958 (JOVIAL being a first attempt), and thus all its failings are excused because it was discovering the world.
I think the main reason you see this happening over and over again is because we're teaching this whole discipline wrong. By 1960 most of the problems in software development were known and had one or more solutions. Knuth spent decades just cataloging what was mostly already known (and moved the field forward in quite a few occasions as well).
And yet, you can't go a day without someone declaring that now is the time to do it right, this time it will be different. And then they proceed to do one thing after another for which the outcome is already known, just not to them. I think the best way to teach would be to start off with a fairly detailed history of what had gone before, just to give people a map and some basic awareness of the degree to which things have already been done, rather than to find new and interesting ways to shoot themselves in the foot (again).
Unlike actual engineering, software "engineering" as a field has decided to reinvent itself every generation - worse, every turn of the trends, even every project and person. Majority of the practitioners are in it for superficial reasons, unaware of its rich history and culture.
With ignorance comes arrogance of an individualist intellectual, thinking their unique revolutionary contribution will wow the public and move the field forward. Except inevitably they're not only reinventing the wheel but the entire automobile, without knowing basic principles and the work of predecessors. It has a lot in common with modern art.
> we're teaching this whole discipline wrong
I sometimes think languages after C, like C++ and Java, were misguided in some ways. Sure they provided business value, brought new ideas, and the software worked - but their popularity came at a cost of leaving countless great thoughts behind in history, and resulted in a poverty of software culture, education and imagination.
There are optimistic signs of people returning to the roots, re-learning the lessons and re-discovering ideas. I think many are coming to realize the need for a reformation of sorts.