Can C do something that C++/Rust can't?

Can C do something that C++/Rust can't?

Attached: thinking.png (2688x2688, 173K)

you use C when you need a small embedded computer to do something in 4 milliseconds instead of 12 milliseconds
thats about it

Can C++/Rust do something that C can't?

guarantee vuln-free code

since c++ more or less includes everything from regular c, not much

the only thing c++ can't do is make code for MCUs with super tiny amounts of memory due to more bloated standard library.

All these languages are Turing complete so you can implement every algorithm with them.

>the only thing c++ can't do
Actually you can do this, too.

Parametric polymorphism.

Yes, reveal companies and organisation that can't into proper compiler construction.

>what are macros

The second worst choice for metaprogramming, after non-standardized external tools.

C is a disservice to intelligent programmers. It has almost 0 features that a modern and intelligent programmer uses to be productive. Since C is such a timesink, it's popularity is falling more than any other languages in the market.
C is dying and it should die ASAP. C programmers are actually retards in general. C is a small language to grasp, exactly the kind of shit that makes things retard friendly.
C has no advanced features like C++ does.

But as a newfag you are kinda in the right direction. C is for newbies. Think of it this way:
During ancient times, counting to 10 was a big deal and a person who could count to 10 was considered to be "wise".

Fast forward a few century counting to 10 is so trivial we teach this to toddlers. Now toddlers appreciate the vast "knowledge" of counting to 10 while matured brains are busy with modern technologies.

C is from stone age and the people who still preach it is like overgrown toddlers that can't learn advanced things. C is for lesser programmers.
C doesn't have delegates
C doesn't have resizable arrays
C doesn't have strings
C doesn't have string concatenation
C doesn't have namespaces
C doesn't have exception handling
C doesn't have closures in the standard
C doesn't have unit tests
C doesn't have Function overloading
C doesn't have memory safety of any kind
C doesn't prevent memory exploits and has no bounds and runtime checks
C doesn't support dynamic method loading/creating
C doesn't even have generics and templates
C doesn't have meta programming
C doesn't have mixins
C doesn't have higher order functions
C doesn't have contract programming
C doesn't have inner classes
C doesn't have function literals
C doesn't have array slicing
C has a very limited support for implicit parallelism
C doesn't even have string switches

C is a cancer that plagues the modern software industry

Attached: 1515859473710.png (600x382, 163K)

C is the only programming language, everything else is coding aka soyboy numale "development"

most of these items are bloat and can be added in with libraries if it's really necessary or should be offput to another resource.

Example, why should C check for memory bounds or runtime checks? What if I wanted a specific address? It should be the operating system's job to prevent memory access.

>C is from stone age and the people who still preach it is like overgrown toddlers that can't learn advanced things. C is for lesser programmers.
everything fast runs on C, EVERYTHING
>C doesn't have delegates
what are function pointers
>C doesn't have resizable arrays
what is realloc
>C doesn't have strings
strings is just a series of bytes, so a char* wrapped inside a struct \w size_t
>C doesn't have string concatenation
what is memcpy
>C doesn't have namespaces
not needed
>C doesn't have exception handling
any non nigger knows that errors are returned in RAX so they use negative numbers to return errors, exceptions waste awful lot of cycles, only soyboys need them.

>t. samefag compilerconstructorlet falling for the pasta

Not have memory leaks.

>exceptions waste awful lot of cycles
Only when they get thrown actually
Otherwise they lead to a bit faster code since you won't have to check both condition and then error code.

That's C preprocessor, not C.

You're an idiot who completely misses the point of why someone would choose C. And a lot of statements are simply incorrect, and the rest don't really matter or have workarounds.

You're using the term bloat wrong. No one is making you use the whole standard C or C++ library. You only include specific stuff you're going to use. It doesn't necessarily make anything slower or worse if they add 100 new things to the standard libraries, as long as they're easy to understand and use while still having useful features they're fine.

C has designated initializers.
C++ has 4 different initializer syntaxes which are all broken.

What's broken about them?