Re: embedded newbies site.

[Strake <strake888@gmail.com>]

On 01/08/2013, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
>> I doubt it not, but I said nil of C++ and Java in that segment.
>
> You were using their buzzwords.

"Polymorphism" isn't theirs; they just use it.

>> Oh, it's surely possible, but at times forgotten.
>> Too, (passing pointers, clearing errno, ...) to kludge over C's lack
>> of (tuples|multiple return values) can break this.
>
> C is based on static typing and static memory management, with the
> static structures, arrays, and pointers as its main data composition
> mechanisms.

Yes. Notably, it lacks tuples, which are essentially anonymous structures.

> Scripting languages like python/ruby/lua use dynamic typing and dynamic
> memory managment, which means they can include resizeable containers as
> first class types.

Well, yes, but dynamic memory allocation alone is enough; a language
can easily have static types and resizable containers, for example
Haskell.

> So talking about kludging over C's lack of some feature is like saying
> you're kludging over assembly language's lack of a feature.

I can return multiple values in asm. I ought to be able to do so in C.

> Using the tool that's fast while complaining about what makes it fast is silly.

Not complaining about what makes it fast, which to my knowledge is
imperative nature and explicit allocation.

> I'm trying to figure out if "I didn't learn C using object oriented
> buzzwords" means "you don't need object oriented buzzwords to teach C".

It does.

> That said, teaching C++ and thinking that means you've taught C was a
> massive disservice to a generation of programmers. A mud pie is not a
> beverage, even if you make it with bottled water.

Heh. At Carleton University, in the first-year coding class for
engineers, they teach a little C + iostream and call it C++.

>> $ sort comparator argu ...
>>
>> where comparator is some program, and argu ... its arguments
>
> sort <(ls -f)

I meant not what it sorts, but how it sorts it.

> That said, factorization is still pure buzzword in this context.

Please define "buzzword" so I can shun them in future messages.

> It's been a while since they improved on the hammer.

True, but not every fastener is a nail.