undefined | Better HN

0 pointspjmlp1mo ago0 comments

Because the communities aren't the same.

C++ is 1990's Typescript for C++, while C folks still think is a portable Assembly instead of designed to an abstract machine model.

As such C++ community embraces high level abstractions and type systems improvements, whereas C wants to still code as targeting classical hardware.

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

gritzko1mo ago· 3 in thread

That is the entire point, yes. Reasoning about layers of completely imaginary entities is what demotivates me about C++ and Rust. Meanwhile, hardware bits are very real (and getting more expensive recently). Having implemented slices and generics in C, now C++ feels like Vietnam flashbacks.

https://replicated.wiki/blog/abc

pjmlpOP1mo ago

Yet C23 isn't K&R C any longer, nor is the hardware a PDP 11.

Also when we eventually start talking to agents that perform the whole execution steps by themselves, that is kind of irrelevant.

Except for the lucky ones that still code to keep the infrastructure going, which is mostly C++.

flohofwoe1mo ago

The PDP-11 myth is getting a bit tired by now ;)

If C would be so hardwired to the PDP-11 architecture it would have died with it. In reality C works just fine on all sorts of hardware (like GPUs) with only minor extensions.

2 more replies

uecker1mo ago

The "nor is the hardware a PDP 11". Byte access was the main new feature of the PDP 11 that C adopted. Are you saying being able to access individual bytes is not relevant on modern hardware?

2 more replies

jstimpfle1mo ago· 2 in thread

Caring for the actual assembler output in selected critical pieces of code is not the same as ignoring the abstract machine model. What you claim is simply not the case if you check actual proficient systems programmers. Of which there are an astonishingly high share C and C++-but-mostly-C programmers.

pjmlpOP1mo ago

Any user of compiled languages cares about Assembly, which is why regardless of the compiled language, an Assembler was always shipped alongside.

Also it isn't a C invention to have the compiler dump the Assembly output instead of object code.

Now the culture that C language constructs in 2026 are still 1:1 to Assembly instructions, that pretty much prevails, despite easy proof that isn't the case at various compiler optimization levels.

Proficient devs, well many still don't know to distinguish what is their compiler, and what ISO says.

jstimpfle1mo ago

It is the case that you can more easily know what happens when you don't use the wrong abstractions but stay in control. Highly-abstracted C++ code basically makes allocations and syscalls in the whitespace between the source code tokens. You can't do systems software like that, you have to roll back the abstractions and roll back the use of pre-canned containers and libraries that you don't understand.

So it's all about understanding and control, not about some idea that C was defined in terms of assembly instructions, which it obviously is not. That's a total strawman.

1 more reply

wasmperson1mo ago

> C folks still think is a portable Assembly

> C [community] wants to still code

> many still don't know to distinguish

> the culture that... despite easy proof that isn't the case

> devs wrongly assume

> self inflicted complexity

> considered an advantage when argued by C folks

> when the same crowd points

> as the C crowd pretends it to be

You're arguing in this thread not by addressing what people are actually saying but by bringing up some hypothetical version of what "the C Community" thinks, then arguing with that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

gritzko1mo ago· 3 in thread

https://replicated.wiki/blog/abc

pjmlpOP1mo ago

Yet C23 isn't K&R C any longer, nor is the hardware a PDP 11.

Also when we eventually start talking to agents that perform the whole execution steps by themselves, that is kind of irrelevant.

Except for the lucky ones that still code to keep the infrastructure going, which is mostly C++.

flohofwoe1mo ago

The PDP-11 myth is getting a bit tired by now ;)

If C would be so hardwired to the PDP-11 architecture it would have died with it. In reality C works just fine on all sorts of hardware (like GPUs) with only minor extensions.

2 more replies

uecker1mo ago

The "nor is the hardware a PDP 11". Byte access was the main new feature of the PDP 11 that C adopted. Are you saying being able to access individual bytes is not relevant on modern hardware?

2 more replies

jstimpfle1mo ago· 2 in thread

pjmlpOP1mo ago

Any user of compiled languages cares about Assembly, which is why regardless of the compiled language, an Assembler was always shipped alongside.

Also it isn't a C invention to have the compiler dump the Assembly output instead of object code.

Now the culture that C language constructs in 2026 are still 1:1 to Assembly instructions, that pretty much prevails, despite easy proof that isn't the case at various compiler optimization levels.

Proficient devs, well many still don't know to distinguish what is their compiler, and what ISO says.

jstimpfle1mo ago

So it's all about understanding and control, not about some idea that C was defined in terms of assembly instructions, which it obviously is not. That's a total strawman.

1 more reply

wasmperson1mo ago

> C folks still think is a portable Assembly

> C [community] wants to still code

> many still don't know to distinguish

> the culture that... despite easy proof that isn't the case

> devs wrongly assume

> self inflicted complexity

> considered an advantage when argued by C folks

> when the same crowd points

> as the C crowd pretends it to be

You're arguing in this thread not by addressing what people are actually saying but by bringing up some hypothetical version of what "the C Community" thinks, then arguing with that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse