The only language you'll ever need

If you disagree with this post you're literally a poo.

Found a C book in the free bin at my school's library. How should I go about learning? Read chapter 1-end or find bits that are interesting and work on them?

Mainly read the binary and hexadecimal section and learned conversion between the two, memory is confusing but I think I get it.

t. india

You found your challenge. Keep at it until you do. Then expand into something more complex finding new challenges. Eventually you will "get" it.

Here's the book.

Attached: 20190106_115320.jpg (4608x3456, 2.8M)

Which C book?
In the English speaking side of things there are ONLY two books which don't make the crime of teaching you C using incorrect or misleading analogies. That's The C Programming Language (2nd Edition) and C Programming: A Modern Approach.

Bloated trash. C is full of shit you don't need at all.

I'll check those out, this is the book I have.

>funny way of spelling "math"

Attached: 1516951646176.png (920x900, 502K)

lol you never touched low level language in your life
probably a cuck faggot that "needs" $3000 mac for javascript

Holy shit I can't believe triggering neckbeards on Jow Forums is this easy.

Fix your reading comprehension, genius.

>WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO TAKE MATH I JUST WANNA PROGRAM!!!!!

>C
>bloated

Attached: questions.gif (480x480, 497K)

I hate software that requires GCC (and make) bloatware to install it.

I understand that some developers aren't very good and need to use the C scripting language to write code and then a bunch of other tools to convert it to machine instructions, but I'm not interested in the lame script, I just want the binaries.

How can we fix this?

Agreed, that's why suckass stuff is garbage.

C compilers aren't even written in C.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Javascript is even more bloated than C, why the fuck would I use JS.
What the fuck do you need operators for? What the fuck do you need pointers for, what the fuck do you need structs for? Stupid bloated shit no one needs. Just fucking have like a few fixed size integer types and one word sized integer type for storing memory addresses. Don't need operators, just call functions. Don't need structs just compute the offsets yourself.
In fact what the fuck do you even need flow control structures for? get rid of that dumb bloated shit and just use goto.
C is bloated trash.

C is full of useless shit you don't actually need. See It's just as bad as modern languages.

>LE EPIC WIN
You surely pwned us, user, you surely did. Now take your pills.

What about C Primer Plus by Stephen Prata?

>What the fuck do you need operators for? What the fuck do you need pointers for, what the fuck do you need structs for?
lol to ease your workflow and make code easier to read and understand... that's the purpose of a programming language you know

>"math"
C language superior over math

>funny way of spelling "math"

Attached: 1546562261214.jpg (1131x622, 126K)

Theoretical math is useless unless you're devoting your life to academia.
Applied math is basically done for you and is only one of a dozen things an engineer needs to excel in.

that is very obvious bait

>lol to ease your workflow and make code easier to read and understand... that's the purpose of a programming language you know
Then why not just use C++17 or some other feature-full language. At least C++'s abstractions are efficient and mostly zero cost so what excuse do you have for using C under your line of logic?

Literally no argument.

it's pretty straightforward.
get the k&r and work through the examples.

That 0 should be sqrt(2)

But there is nothing to get

>C, the language with the shortest and sweetest spec
>bloated

Attached: spVrM.gif (267x200, 294K)

Funny way of spelling “philosophy”.

Just because it's the least bloated language doesn't mean it isn't bloated.
Give me ONE reason why you need operators, pointer types, structs, etc other than "HUR DUR CONVENIENCE"

>Then why not just use C++17 or some other feature-full language. At least C++'s abstractions are efficient and mostly zero cost so what excuse do you have for using C under your line of logic?
Cniles on suicide watch.

>Just because it's the least bloated language doesn't mean it isn't bloated.
??????

Was this made by someone that read the first paragraph about imaginary numbers on wikipedia?

If you're too retarded to understand then turn your computer off and go to bed or something.

We're talking complex numbers here so i is not equal to 1, but instead it's the imaginary unit. Using the Pythagorean theorem we get: i2 + 12 = -1 + 1 = 0

My poor mind

best post ITT

>just because a towel is not wet, that doesn't mean it's not wet
>just because a car is the slowest, that doesn't mean it's not slow

i kinda get pointers but i don't get the fancier stuff you can do with then. what the fuck is pointer arithmetic? how do function pointers inside a struct actually work? i tried to look at some of this stuff using gdb but even that doesn't help

The 2's should be to the power of two, 4chins failed me

The modulus of a complex number is the square root of the number multiplied by its conjugate. |1+i| = sqrt((1+i)*(1-i)) = sqrt(2). You can also just do |a+bi| = sqrt(a^2+b^2).

The second one is correct, assuming you meant just slow, not "not slow".
I don't know why you're have such a difficult time understanding. C may not be as bloated as other languages, but it's still bloated and has tons of shit you don't actually need.

it's nigger tier easy what are you doing

>modulus of a complex number
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Why did you bring it up?

I use python because C is too hard and I'm not good at math

True, open source is the worst

>math
Completely irrelevant to using C.

|x| = sqrt(x^2)
| i | = sqrt(i^2) = sqrt(-1) = i

At the same time, it also removes the sign of -i, | -i | = sqrt((-i)^2) = sqrt(-1) = i, which means that the rules for real numbers are also flawlessly upheld for complex as well.
So why try to change the way it works when it obviously works exactly as intended, and pull a random "1" magnitude for i out of your ass? Oh right because your meme subject falls apart if we don't do that, and the same goes for division with zero as well
A century from now people will be laughing at us and calling us unevolved primates for ever buying into this shit

If it's the LEAST bloated language, then that by definition makes it not bloated. What the fuck man, do you even human language

> t. pic related

Attached: 1538422523233.png (679x769, 58K)

>funny way of spelling "math"

Attached: 1534661208949.jpg (714x430, 32K)

but Jow Forums said I need to know math to be a good code guy!

Attached: 1469995349739.jpg (108x169, 5K)

C++ is just c with addons.

>If it's the LEAST bloated language, then that by definition makes it not bloated.
Completely and utterly incorrect.
Consider these numbers: 7, 3, 9, 4, 8, 6, 2
Now which of these numbers is the least positive? It's 2.
So then is two not positive? Wrong, it is positive.
Least x != not x. I can't fucking believe you don't realize this. Every 5 year old realizes this.

Go use fucking C++ or Rust then.

Because that's what you're computing with the Pythagorean Theorem?

But it's not?

Stop blaming everyone else for you being stupid and saying stupid things, brainlet.

>using math logic when talking about linguistics
Oh wow. What is less bloated than the least bloated option? Think about that for a minute. Or 10 minutes. Or however long it takes you to get it. Jesus christ.

>when talking about linguistics
Sorry what? Who's fucking talking about linguistics here? Whoever it is they're fucking retarded for bringing up irrelevant shit in a conversation about programming languages.
When I said C is the least bloated programming languages, I meant EXACTLY what I said.
And btw, least x != not x is true in natural language too. Only complete fucking idiots interpret it as "not x".

Complex number aren't ordered. You can't just use the same definition you do with real numbers. Holy fuck you're retarded.

>What is less bloated than the least bloated option?
Nothing, by definition you fucking idiot. Why would you ask such a stupid question?
C is bloated, get over it. It's just that every other language manages to be even more bloated. This IS NOT difficult to understand.

Are you on PCP or something

Funny way of spelling “philosophy”.

>m-muh ordered set

seething damage control

Do a bunch of shits. Then choose the least smelliest shit. Is that shit still smelly? Probably yes.
Well, according to it's not smelly at all.
Which means 100 is a negative number.

>least positive
Meaningless, a number is either positieve, negative or zero.

Ran out of arguments already? Sad.

A non-bloated language and the least bloated language are logically equivalent

The pythagorean theorem states that you take the MAGNITUDE of the sides and square them. i is 1 at an angle of pi/2 from the real line, so the answer would be sqrt(1^2+1^2)=sqrt(2).
t. Math major

That argument probably sounded a lot more convincing in Hindi

Not if the set of languages does not include a language with zero bloat. Therefore the least bloated language can only be the language that has the lowest number of bloat, which means it is not non-bloated (i.e. zero bloat).
Given that there does not exist a language in this world with zero bloat, then the least bloated language is still bloated.

Pointer arithmetic, to the best of my knowledge:
An int, in memory, takes up four bytes. A pointer points to a single byte address in memory, but the compiler knows that an int-pointer needs to read four bytes. Therefore, when you increment an in pointer by one, the compiler increments it by four, so you see the next int in memory instead of the next byte of an int. A char, though, is only 1 byte, so incrementing a char pointer just points to the next byte in memory.

But if it has the least amount of bloat, then by definition that makes it not bloated, since bloat describes how many useless features it has. So if it has the least amount of useless features, then that's the baseline for which you can safely assume that it's not bloated. How is this a hard concept to get?

>takes up four bytes
Wrong already. No need to read the rest of your post.

I prefer go myself

Function pointers inside of a struct:
Functions, like variables, are stored in memory; therefore, they can be pointed to according to their address (the address of the first byte of the function in memory). Since a pointer is really just an 8-byte variable, you can create a function pointer and store them in a struct like any other variable.

It makes perfect sense

Attached: g2.png (4779x4065, 111K)

lmao every modern compiler has four bytes to an int, gramps

The size of an int is machine dependent but normally 32bits(4bytes) on modern machines. The pointer points to an address in memory which is a word(32 bit for 32bit machines and 64bit for 64bit machines) so a pointer is on 4 or 8 bytes on modern machines

bait, but ill answer anyway since there may be people here that think this is a serious argument

>Then why not just use C++17 or some other feature-full language.
C just works. It is easy to use and understand, and has everything you need for pretty much any project (game development is the only major branch of development where I'd consider C++ superior to C because it is OOP which is useful for modelling real-life objects, though OOP can be implemented using C as well). C also has huge collection of libraries that contain functions for almost anything you'd ever need. C is great for writing low level stuff too (OS and drivers are first that come to mind) especially if you don't want to wrack your brain with ASM.

The point is, C has all features you'd want for writing pretty much anything and is also simple to use though it isn't as "abstract" as Python, for instance, but it offers greater power to programmer in exchange. It is also very lightweight ("muh bloat") especially if you link dynamically.
>At least C++'s abstractions are efficient and mostly zero cost
And C's are as well, why do you think they aren't? C++ is overall just a superset of C after all. C++ is good but there's no reason to use it instead of C (except for game development, but even then it is debatable since you can implement OOP with C) instead of C. If you don't need OOP, and C and C++ are largely the same if we don't count OOP except that C is little less BLOATED what's the point of using C++ over C?

As for the point that C++ is "zero-cost abstraction", you have a point there. But to be honest, "zero-cost abstraction" is used as a buzzword and doesn't really matter as much as you think it does.
>so what excuse do you have for using C under your line of logic?
"It just works and it works well" is enough, but if you want a longer answer read this whole post if you haven't.

C is just assembly with addons, but I don't see you claiming the only language a person ever needs is their architecture's assembly language.

Every language is "assembly with add-ons"

well, this book is on the black list of stackoverflow.

>How is this a hard concept to get?
I don't know, maybe it's the fact that literally every single thing you just said is blatantly wrong?

A language that is not bloated has zero bloat.
Consider this set of languages, represented by their amount of bloat: {9, 467, 3, 134, 346, 359648767483, 77}.
Now lets take the least bloated language out of this set, 3.
Is the language 3 bloated? well, lets compare it to a non bloated language, 0. As we can see, 3 != 0, and in actual fact, 3 > 0.
Therefore we can deduce that 3 is indeed a bloated language. It's just the least bloated language but still bloated nonetheless.
Now the set of real languages is similar to this set in that it does not contain a 0. The only major difference is that it contains a lot more elements.
So we know that the least bloated language from said set can not be 0, thus it is bloated.

An alternative way to think about it.
The least bloated language is C.
There exists useless features in C that you don't need, such as operators, structs, pointer types etc.
Then by your "bloat describes how many useless features it has" statement, we deduce that C is a bloated language.

And?
Most languages are "C with add-ons," too, but I don't see you claiming, for example, that Ruby is the only language one will ever need.

why use C when I can use algol?

Attached: test.jpg (1500x1000, 210K)

His point is that C covers a wider area of applications. You can't write code for a microcontroller in Ruby, but it is possible to do that and nearly everything C does if you have enough time in your hands,