Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of Compiz In Question

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by liam View Post
    However, I admit that that may not be the case if I focused more on C, regardless, most cs students/coders are more familiar with vm backed/non memory obsessed lanuages like java or python, ime.

    Best,
    Liam
    Hey us old farts are efficient and productive with our old ways. I've got to admit I use C heavily because of the years (gulp going on decades now I guess) of experience with it. Sometimes it's just easier for us because we are so proficient at it. You young whipper snappers have it too easy nowdays.

    Comment


    • #32
      How'd you get out of your room!

      I wish C had been stressed more for every CS student rather than just those who were on a systems track, but when I was in school, Java was the thing. Now, I never touch the stuff(Java that is).
      Anyway, doesn't being so studly with pointers give you more ammo to throw as the Greatest Generation

      Best,
      Liam

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        You young whipper snappers have it too easy nowdays.
        You remind me of this one Dilbert cartoon:
        Code:
        Panel 1:
        Wally - This GUI programming is for wimps.
        
        Panel 2:
        Dilbert - In my day we had to program with 1's and 0's.
        Wally - You had 1's and 0's? We didn't have any 0's so we had to use
        'ohs'.
        
        Panel 3:
        Dilbert - One time we ran out of 1's. I had to write an entire DB
        program using only 0's.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DanL View Post
          You remind me of this one Dilbert cartoon:
          Code:
          Panel 1:
          Wally - This GUI programming is for wimps.
          
          Panel 2:
          Dilbert - In my day we had to program with 1's and 0's.
          Wally - You had 1's and 0's? We didn't have any 0's so we had to use
          'ohs'.
          
          Panel 3:
          Dilbert - One time we ran out of 1's. I had to write an entire DB
          program using only 0's.
          hah! in my time a computer was a person doing calculations and you 'programmed' them by yelling at them until they gave you the desired result!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by energyman View Post
            hah! in my time a computer was a person doing calculations and you 'programmed' them by yelling at them until they gave you the desired result!
            Heh, my dad's tv remote worked the same way. "Kid go change the channel."

            Comment


            • #36
              Well I am a CS student who really likes C -- OK I guess I can see what you mean buy a true OO language being more suitable for GUI type/desktop work, but IIRC most of GNOME is in C, so I guess it's not total insanity is it?

              Also, I don't believe lack of competence should be a reason to move to another language. Poor C coders will likely make for poor Java coders or Python coders for non-trivial and non-toy applications. Surely a poor C coder will make a poor C++ coder as well. There is definitely a place for languages that make things easier, but I don't think the rationale should be to encourage poor coders to get involved in a project.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                Well I am a CS student who really likes C -- OK I guess I can see what you mean buy a true OO language being more suitable for GUI type/desktop work, but IIRC most of GNOME is in C, so I guess it's not total insanity is it?
                Any KDE people want to answer this?
                Seriously, I hope the gtk rewrite might incorporate a change in language. I truly think that an OO language just fits better for large(in terms of memory), oft reused imagey stuff. That and my previous assertion that OO is simply the norm for most, would increase, IMO, participation for these projects.

                Also, I don't believe lack of competence should be a reason to move to another language. Poor C coders will likely make for poor Java coders or Python coders for non-trivial and non-toy applications. Surely a poor C coder will make a poor C++ coder as well. There is definitely a place for languages that make things easier, but I don't think the rationale should be to encourage poor coders to get involved in a project.
                It's not simply lack of competence, but lack of need/desire, I think. Most departments simply don't think most students will have to worry about the things C forces you to think about. Very similar to assembly,IMO. Both are taught to some extent, but they are intro'd more for pedagogical reasons than actual interest in producing practical codes in said languages. Blame the departments, or marketplace, if you will. They teach for the "center", so to speak. Not intending to produce web designers or microcode developers. JMO, based on my experiences and anecdotes from friends(when I was i school, I only took the recommended CS classes for my major).
                Lastly, I believe that it takes longer to produce an efficient C programmer than a Java one. Java is a bigger language(have I mentioned that I don't like Java?), but it really lets one look at design more than implementation,IMO. So I don't think it is a question of poor programmers, but CS program tracks and marketplace(how many .NET programming positions are available vs. those asking for expertise with C?).

                Best,
                Liam

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                  Well I am a CS student who really likes C -- OK I guess I can see what you mean buy a true OO language being more suitable for GUI type/desktop work, but IIRC most of GNOME is in C, so I guess it's not total insanity is it?

                  Also, I don't believe lack of competence should be a reason to move to another language. Poor C coders will likely make for poor Java coders or Python coders for non-trivial and non-toy applications. Surely a poor C coder will make a poor C++ coder as well. There is definitely a place for languages that make things easier, but I don't think the rationale should be to encourage poor coders to get involved in a project.
                  yes, gnome is written in C because 'more people know C' - and they jump to a lot of hoops to implement OO in C. That alone explains some of the size and uglyness of glib and gtk. It is pretty much a mess.

                  If you want oo - why not use an oo language in the first place?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If you want oo - why not use an oo language in the first place ?
                    What about python instead of C++ then ?
                    Let the core program being written in C, and do the UI design using Python.

                    Anyway, I don't think that the size of Glib and/or bad code has something to do with the language itself.
                    It's as easy (if not easier) to write crap using C++.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      because python is dead slow - and not everybody likes forced formatting?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        And Objective C ?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Eww. Please tell what is good in OO. Having to type 10x longer function names just to get anything done clearly affects production rates.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            Eww. Please tell what is good in OO. Having to type 10x longer function names just to get anything done clearly affects production rates.
                            What? OO-style languages usually _reduce_ the length of function call code... at absolute worst, it should be almost same as in procedural-style C code. If you're writing OO code in any sane language that's making things much longer than the C equivalent then you're doing something really off the wall.

                            That said, Obj-C is probably not the best bet for a low-level component like the X server. It's a relatively dynamic language and incurs a lot of overhead on method calls compared to something like C or C++. (C++ has no additional overhead compared to C for non-virtual method calls, and its implementation of virtual methods is essentially identical to any C code that uses a shared struct of function pointers -- and you can implement any other style of virtual methods in C++ but do it with a shorter and easier calling convention than C would require.)

                            Here I was thinking this was 2009 and that irrational fear of anything non-C was long dead.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Uhhh... Lets compare.

                              C: puts("Hi")
                              Java: system.output.println("Hi")
                              C++: std:uts("Hi")

                              C is leading with 4 chars. The same function in Java is measly 22 chars, and in C++ it's 9 characters. And you were saying about shorter functions?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                and how many headers do you have to include in your c app?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X