Why does this make zoomers so upset?

sure, whatever.
*continues coding in C/C++*

I was born in 2000, so technically zoomer. My first programming language was C and I still love programming in it. I don't understand why people think it's a bad first language, it helped me understand programming and abstraction better than any other language did.

>C/C++
I-It's not the same REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1544729016111.png (1098x1126, 492K)

Enjoy rewriting makefiles each time you add a header lol

oh, ok, i'm sorry
*removes #include *

>segmentation fault: core dumped

Attached: 1551246726668.png (1799x825, 263K)

thanks, i will.
cool meme dude

he forgot: everything wrong with C fits on a short list. good luck doing that with any other language

Attached: 1546568048966.jpg (806x1200, 159K)

>rust tranny

>C tranny

Attached: leah2.jpg (300x300, 43K)

That's because C is a small language with no worthwhile features. Only useful for legacy shit or if you have to program a potato but NEETs on Jow Forums will just continue to fizzbuzz in it. Everything on that list is a huge pain in the ass and will cost you tons of debugging time
Fizzbuzz in C or C++ isn't useful neet

List is short because C has nothing of value. It's on a life support.

Attached: 1539959093749.png (1834x1200, 639K)

You're cute.
How does it feel to try to be always right?

>actual C tranny
top kek

you can use vectors wtf you talking about

>C
>Vectors
Are you talking about glib? It's not standard.

Can't spell cope without C

> C++ standard library
nobody uses that shit

>using r*ddit as a source
that's a yikes from me chief

Attached: 1548552366469.jpg (711x514, 115K)

OBSESSION

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-01 g - 1 33 0 is out - Technology - 4chan.png (1066x809, 282K)

>getting BTFO'd by r*ddit
lmao
>t. reddit

Attached: 1542078963386.png (259x195, 8K)

I legit wish for an OS written in terra and lua

nobody uses C, there's this new language gcc that all the C users migrated to

there's this thing called utf8 which is literally ascii

UTF8 table is backwards compatible is ASCII, it doesn't mean that UTF8 is ASCII

I don't speak chang
why are you enabling the chinese

Sometimes you gotta lower your standards to get a joke across, you know?

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (1280x720, 87K)

Are all Ctards NPCs? Literally the same fucking response every single time with no exceptions.
No you retarded Cnile, do you know what math symbols are?
Of course not, your primitive low IQ brain isn't smart enough. You are not only misinformed but also dumb as bricks. No wonder you use C.

imagine being that salty because some people are using C...

I can see the insecurity seeping from your fat-rich saliva.

>ad hom
Ah yes, the last resort

Attached: 1552050249233.png (1066x809, 187K)

You'll grow out of it eventually.

Attached: unix is a virus.png (677x514, 38K)

Dude we aren't using C/C++ because it's the most awsum lagguage with all your favorite hipster features

its used because its functional and links to shit

It's cute when little timmy watched a few youtube videos about rust and now is the biggest advocate for it.

but little timmy, not everyone has to be a rust programmer, johnny likes C, timothy frequently uses php, susan loves coding in python and so on...

Little timmy is angry because people have personal preferences. Little timmy has personality! Everyone must be like timmy!
Little timmy must shitpost on a korean basket-weaving forum so he can prove he's better than everyone else!

The dichotomy between OOP and free functions is artificial, a consequence of the limiting single dispatch OOP you see implemented in languages like C++.

Learn a language with multiple dispatch OOP to expand your horizons.

Attached: programmers according to lisp.jpg (593x640, 100K)

>>there's this thing called utf8 which is literally ascii
Write a correct routine that returns the first N glyphs in a block of utf-8 in a char*

just use multi param type classes bro

The only reason people don't like c is because it requires you to take the time to build a library of useful shit. Most arguments against it are just convenience of life changes. I still use it constantly even with graphics programming and it serves me fine since I'm not a brainlet who can only work if a string class is made for me.

Multiple dispatch is exceedingly elegant and lends itself well to multi-paradigm programming, enabling a sort of casual approach to problem solving that Haskell can't really compete with.

That said, Haskell has a lot of merit.

(pic not related)

Attached: scheme-vs-lisp.png (632x485, 67K)

proper tail calls to a C programmer:
>when you hire a high class hooker

Look at this thread, op is right

>Erlang
Im dead

Attached: 1540548258133.jpg (1036x919, 190K)

Because zoomers studied history and discovered that Lisp, Fortran, Ada, PL/I, Simula and Smalltalk exist (the first two created before C even existed), and can therefore recognize how shit C is, since they don't have the same emotional attachment boomers, 30 yo boomers and LARPers have.
Derivatives such as C++ and Java aren't that good either, but they are still much better, and most of their problems are due to their C baggage.

What are MUDs?

If I learn C++ it should be trivially easy to learn C, or am I wrong?

>had to do a c project for a class
>spent literally 10 hours wondering why strcmp(thing) didn't work
>had to compare it with 0
>0 is true
wtf

C is _almost_ a subset of C++, so yes.
You don't have to learn C before C++, but I would avoid learning C++ first if it's your first language.

i mean i'm a zoomer and it's been my primary programming language for about 8 years

Because values different from 0 show the difference in string length?
tutorialspoint.com/c_standard_library/c_function_strcmp.htm

>spend 10 hours being a brainlet instead of just looking up what a function does

Attached: 1547860368238.jpg (534x486, 58K)

>Tranny can't into pattern rules.
kys.

0 isn't "true" you noob, 0 is "EQUAL". If you subtract X from X what do you get? ZERO.

Behold the the intelligence of the anti-C posters.

go away kid

to be fair I had programming 101 in C and now that you mentioned that I remember that being explained, I would have remembered it 3 years ago but it really didn't cross my mind that a language wouldn't have truth values
I'm not an anti-C poster, it was just something I thought was counter-intuitive. I'm not even a python zoomer or something, I primarily use C++ which is programming perfected

>not automating your make file generation
What are you, some kind if dumb?

Wouldn't it be nice if C could at least check constant strings for equality without calling a function?

const char *msg = "MSG_EXIT";
if (msg == "MSG_EXIT") return;

identical string literals should be guaranteed the same pointer.

best you can do is like:
int msg = 'EXIT';

>using makefiles
oh.. oh hahahah oh no... oh nonono ahahahaha oh ahahahahhahahahhahaha

Attached: 1549541411324.jpg (474x266, 22K)

I wrote a fancy makefile years ago that handles all that and i haven't had to fuck with it in a long time

you use the make dependency feature of gcc

>C/C++
>t.brainlet that comes c++ likes its c with classes.

What I've noticed is that Cniles have horrible reading comprehension. It seems like they can barely read. It's probably brain damage fro programming in C.

There is nothing wrong by treating C++ like this.

people fear what they dont understand and hate what popular people they think highly of dislike

Attached: 1518199241565.png (270x319, 78K)

Nobody writes C in the workforce unless you unironically do operating systems.

>weird and stupid syntax
>weird type behavior of arrays
>POSIX libc is poorly designed and riddled with inconsistencies
>also contains plethora of obsolete functions and bullcraps such as string functions
>errno
>silent but deadly integer promotion and implicit casting bugs
>global namespacing
>having to deal with C++ compatibility faggotry because C is just subset of C++ except not really
>no slice types, while you can and should pass associated size_t around, you still need to write stupid pragmas or attributes for static analyzers to tell them it's the size of the >buffer
>too many clusterfuck but popular libraries that just have to reimplement everything from scratch such as their integer types
>horrible Windows support
>horrible quirks on every other OS and libc implementation
>"""compatibility and portability""" means you have horrible mazes of #ifs preprocessing
>can't even let the compiler verify that ALL paths are correct code, just the one at the time
>global namespacing
>no return value and copy elision optimizations
>hard to set up isolated compilation environment that has linked libraries locally and not in some global system path
>compilers are massive and take too much time and solving dependencies to compile them
>poor testing support, can't bypass static visibility
>no dynamically loaded environment and interpreter shell despite compilers being perfectly capable providing it

what I'm glad is not in C:
>bazillion constructors, destructors, exceptions, operator overloading and anything that hides an executions flow and inserts implicit calls; signals are already a bad idea
>bazillion handle and wrapping objects sorely to make something RAII-aware
>private members and culture of putting indirections everywhere with getters and setters and just read/write the private member

People who program CAD soft ware use C and C++.

Why do boomers try to force C into an OOP paradigm even though it clearly isn't designed for that? Just use C++ you dumb retards.

Attached: 5e2.jpg (554x439, 106K)

You can just tell this guy writes garbage code full of vulnerabilities

I write C exclusively at work.

Zoomers are afraid of pointers

No one can write safe code in C.

Exactly.

Because the most aggressive Cniles who shit on C++ are actually tsundere for C++.
Even guys such as Suckless: just take a look at dwm's source code and tell me if it isn't literally reimplementing OO in C.

yodaiken.com/2018/06/07/torvalds-on-aliasing/
Daily reminder it's impossible to use C correctly, even Linus doesn't understand the standard and advocates for ignoring it, basically inviting UBs and subtle bugs:
> Don't tell me "the C standard is unclear". The C standard is _clearly_ bogus shit (see above on strict aliasing rules), and when it is bogus garbage, it needs to be explicitly ignored
> The standard simply is not *important*, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.
> I've said this before, and I'll say it again: a standards paper is just so much toilet paper when it conflicts with reality. It has absolutely _zero_ relevance. In fact, I'll take real toilet paper over standards any day, because at least that way I won't have splinters and ink up my arse.
No, you can either support him, basically turning gcc with a set of the compiler options into the de-facto C standard, but then it's no better than other languages without a standard and you're a hostage of the horribly maintained project gcc is. Or you can argue against him, but then you have to somehow show that competent C programmers even exist, because the most famous C programmer in the world is clearly incompetent.

>dwm's source code and tell me if it isn't literally reimplementing OO in C
Why doesn't someone just point this out to them?

>operator overloading
why?

I don't think you know what OO is.

precisely

I wonder who's responsible for this type of propaganda.

>drw_init(Drw *...
>drw_dostuff(Drw *...
>hehe! but it's not oop since it's c! take that, pajeets!

Seriously, why don't you like it?

I already know the answer, but I'll ask regardless: who do you think is responsible for such "propaganda"?
It's also quite ironic of you to speak this way considering the massive revisionism campaign started by AT&T 50 years ago.
I bet you believe GC was invented decades after C, for instance.

There is no rational reason to be against operator overloading unless you're also against named functions.
I have yet to see a non-retarded argument against it.

the poster you replied to was implying that it was rust discord trannies

Of course, I knew it. But bear in mind that whether it's the rust trannies who live rent free in your head or not doesn't change the fact that C is an objectively shit language.
It's not even about being outdated. It was bad since day 1.

That looks like basic procedural code.

Function overloading is equally bad.
Naming a procedure "+" is fine, but it should only be a single procedure.

>Function overloading is equally bad.
Why?

There is literally nothing wrong with function overloading either.

He is gonna regurgitate some cat-v memes, brace yourself.

I'm a zoomer and it doesn't make me upset

Function overloading is actually bad. Generic functions are all you need.

Soi boi tranny faggot using an IDE.
>kys.