The C is dead, long live the C

[DCT Jared Smith]

I thought the point he was making was not that C is "dead," as in nobody
uses it,
only that C is "dead," in that it is a brick, or a foundation upon which we
now are
building. It is alive in the fact that much coding is done in C, yet it is
dead in
that Adam is urging us to move beyond C. We can only move beyond C if we
see it as it is: a single brick in the foundation...

Look at Color Forth for a paradigm shift on where C's postcessor could be
taking us...

http://www.colorforth.com/

-Jared

> C is hardly a dead language. Almost EVERYTHING in Linux is written in C,
> including the kernel! Plus there is a new C standard (C99) that proves the
fact
> that C is still widely used.
>
>> Can you deny that C is now a dead language? Which, yes one can write code
in and
>> it will generally compile on any compiler, but it is being left at the
wayside
>> for tasks it used to be the one and only best use for. Why? It can't
change. The
>> analogy goes something like this: A mason who makes his own bricks is
asked to
>> build a tall tower. He begins with a single brick, which he works with
lovingly
>> and molds to fit the space. He does this for every brick in the base. One
can
>> not build a tower on wet bricks, so the base must first solidify. Once
the base
>> has solidified, he molds another layer of bricks and so on. Eventually,
the
>> bricks at the base, unchanging and hard, are uninteresting and only
noticed in
>> passing. The bricks with which the mason is currently working are the
ones that
>> can change to meet the need. Thus the still-wet bricks are the living
art, the
>> canvas, the frontier. No one will forget the base, but it can no longer
meet the
>> changing need of the current. It is rigid.
>>
>> Lamentable that.
>>
>> The point is, (which I should have qualified) the unstandardized system
can
>> change, is art. Is the Unix kernel prevalent on PCs? No, the Linux kernel
is
>> prevalent. (not as much as it ought to be) When things on a
standards-fearing
>> system are changed, that system is thrown out for not conforming. Even if
it met
>> a need that was valid. I should not say that standards are wrong. We need
a
>> base. But, I do not believe this consortium has created general
standards. These
>> are specific standards, meant only to optimize for greatest commercial
value.
>> Least cost to most profit.
>>
>> Summation of Argument:
>> -The cutting edge is the realm of the artist, the hacker, the pioneer
>> -General standards are a necessity for productivity and structured
change,
>> specific standards are oppressive and choking.
>> -Big business can fill the *nix end-user vaccum, but it will still suck.