PureBasic Forums - English

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:51 pm**

C sucks. Example:

int *pint = 1234;
int *litre;
*litre = 1234;

Now why the HELL does *pint = 1234; set the value of the POINTER while *liter = 1234; sets the value of the DEREFERENCED POINTER???

And WHICH IDIOT made a SYSTEM programming language WITHOUT putting the BIT SIZES of the standard types into the standard? A valid 32-bit C compiler for x86 can, while following the standard, have an 8-bit int and a 64-bit long long (as long as a short and char is no more than 8 bits either). Only conventions keeps the programs running, not the standard.

Code: Select all

int *ptr, notptr;

C's pointer "system" (where's the system?) is a total mess. The * belongs to the variable, not the type, so notptr will not become a pointer. However, even though the * belongs to the variable and not the type, it can also be specified when you specify only a type and no variable, like in a function prototype:

Code: Select all

void myfunc(int *);

In one declaration the * belongs to the variable, in the next it belongs to the type. What were they thinking? (Were they even thinking?)

When to use the * is confusing for starters because it means the EXACT OPPOSITE in different parts of the program.

Code: Select all

int * here_it_means_i_want_a_pointer;

Code: Select all

*however_if_i_use_it_here = it_means_i_DONT_want_the_pointer_but_the_value_it_points_to;

Maybe the other features of C are good, then? (Does C even have other features than pointers?) C features a rich set of operators, that's good. But wait a minute! Did I just say a "rich" set? Can anyone tell me why on earth C lacks a non-bitwise XOR operator? (And C++ as well.)

C has 15 levels of precedence (C++: 17). How many C programmers remembers the relative precence of bitwise and compared to bitwise or? Not many.

To be "consequent", C does not use = for equality testing, it uses ==. This is a huge source of hard-to-detect program errors for programmers. But at least it's consequent, right? Not really. Because when you type a <= b you actually do use = for equality testing, even though = means assignment. If this system was truly consequent then <= would be to < as += is to +, and do an assignment of the boolean value of a less-than comparision.
Yep. += adds and assigns.
-= subtracts and assigns.
*= multiplies and assigns.
/= divides and assigns
%= does modulo and assigns
>>= shifts right and assigns
<<= shifts left and assigns
&= does bitwise and and assigns
^= does bitwise xor and assigns
|= does bitwise or and assigns
<= does NOT do a less-than comparison and assigns.
And they did this to be consequent? (By the way, why is there no &&= operator?)

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:20 pm**

Quite interesting to read this, but I think every language has small inconsequences.
Even PB:
I've always wondered why, if you want an infinite loop, the 'Repeat' must end with 'Forever'
and not 'EndRepeat'

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:45 pm**

Because EndRepeat means that the repeat should END. However, you want to continue with another iteration.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:12 pm**

It's all about form and style, man.

As in GfaBasic's implementation:

Code: Select all

DO
  ....
LOOP

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:16 pm**

It's all about form and style, man.

As in GfaBasic's implementation:

Code: Select all

Do
  ....
Loop

... but Pure's looks better

Code: Select all

Repeat
  ....
Forever

The command I still feel funny about is While ... Wend... I think the next version of PureBasic should restandardize and call it...

Code: Select all

While ...
  ...
GoBackToThePreviousLineWithTheWhileAndKeepTryingMate

Much clearer.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:25 pm**

Well OK, actually you're right

Just needed an example and remembered that in the beginning
of my PB 'career' I felt confused about the 'Forever' :roll:

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:38 pm**

This is something I've always wondered about: Why does a language need to be so complex as C/C++ and such? Seriously. It just seems that you could create a language that is allows for a high level of customization without resorting to so many hacks and 30 different ways to accomplish something. I look at some C code and cringe from how needlessly complex it seems.

Or DirectX. My god that is horrible to look at. Why can't it just be something like... "InitEnvironment()" or "SpotlightHere()" or "PlaySound()" rather than 500 lines to do something relatively simple.

Am I just being naive?

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:03 pm**

No, you're not naive. It's just, well...let your code look more complicated
then your wages will increase

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:08 pm**

I'm in the middle of translating thousands of lines of C code into PB, and I honestly have to agree with Trond about C's usage WRT pointers. However, I will say that I prefer the ease of dereferencing using a single operator rather than PB's Peek/Poke functions. There has to be a way to make pointer usage both consistent and simple/wrist-friendly!

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:52 pm**

> For a new monitor nail here [x]

That's pretty funny.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:40 am**

And WHICH IDIOT made a SYSTEM programming language WITHOUT putting the BIT SIZES of the standard types into the standard?

OK it was me...

and if you believe that I have a dereferenced pointer set to localize!!!

Yes, there is a different sort of logic to C than Basic. I have trouble thinking in C, but little organizing my thoughts in BASIC.

However, as long as you are accurate in your pointage and ; use... you can do some amazing things... Look at the C code in the OBFUSCATION thread!

And then code more in PB...

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:03 am**

[SOLVED]

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:33 am**

r_hyde wrote:I'm in the middle of translating thousands of lines of C code into PB, and I honestly have to agree with Trond about C's usage WRT pointers. However, I will say that I prefer the ease of dereferencing using a single operator rather than PB's Peek/Poke functions. There has to be a way to make pointer usage both consistent and simple/wrist-friendly!

But you don't need Peek/Poke. Just use a variable called *Pointer.LONG. *Pointer is the pointer and *Pointer\l is the value.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:59 am**

Yeah! Confirmed: C and C++ are crap

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:30 pm**

traumatic wrote:[SOLVED]

now, don't let's start THAT again...

PureBasic Forums - English

C sucks (RANT ALERT)

C sucks (RANT ALERT)

Re: C sucks (RANT ALERT)

Re: C sucks (RANT ALERT)