←back to thread

Hacktical C: practical hacker's guide to the C programming language

(github.com)
218 points signa11 | 8 comments | 14 Apr 25 10:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
pjmlp ◴[14 Apr 25 13:43 UTC] No.43681194[source]▶
> The reason I believe C is and always will be important is that it stands in a class of its own as a mostly portable assembler language, offering similar levels of freedom.

When your computer is a PDP-11, otherwise it is a high level systems language like any other.

replies(7): >>43682173 #>>43682246 #>>43682554 #>>43682928 #>>43683332 #>>43683914 #>>43701871 #
1. NoTeslaThrow ◴[14 Apr 25 15:41 UTC] No.43682554[source]▶
> When your computer is a PDP-11, otherwise it is a high level systems language like any other.

Describing C as "high-level" seems like deliberate abuse of the term. The virtual machine abstraction doesn't imply any benefits to the developer.

replies(4): >>43682932 #>>43682952 #>>43683254 #>>43701753 #
2. pjmlp ◴[14 Apr 25 16:17 UTC] No.43682932[source]▶
Neither does pretending C is a macro Assembler.
3. timClicks ◴[14 Apr 25 16:19 UTC] No.43682952[source]▶
That's a curious remark, although I guess it doesn't look high level from the eyes of someone looking at programming languages today.

C has always been classed as a high level language since its inception. That term's meaning has shifted though. When C was created, it wasn't assembly (middle) or directly writing CPU op codes in binary/hex (low level).

4. ecb_penguin ◴[14 Apr 25 16:46 UTC] No.43683254[source]▶
> Describing C as "high-level" seems like deliberate abuse of the term

Honestly it doesn't really matter. High level and low level are relative to each-other (and machine language), and nothing changes based on what label you use.

Best thing to do is shrug and say "ok".

5. ryao ◴[16 Apr 25 05:19 UTC] No.43701753[source]▶
Spend 90 days writing nothing but assembly language and then tell me that you believe C is a low level language.
replies(1): >>43703098 #
6. NoTeslaThrow ◴[16 Apr 25 08:55 UTC] No.43703098[source]▶
I don't see much difference. What is C suppose to express that assembly cannot? What is assembly suppose to express that C cannot? Does this conversation matter to begin with?
replies(2): >>43706152 #>>43706808 #
7. ryao ◴[16 Apr 25 14:39 UTC] No.43706152{3}[source]▶
You did not spend 90 days writing assembly language. I doubt you even spent 1 day.
8. saulpw ◴[16 Apr 25 15:39 UTC] No.43706808{3}[source]▶
For one, C has types and type-checking.