Man don't blame others for your wrong choices... its a joke, you made a great video!!

That’ll do it. Good job repenting for your sins

Do you ever plan on learning another more modern language, like Rust, Go or Zig? I'd find it interesting what you think of them after 2 years of C (also you mentioned Haskell at the end)

i blame runescape private servers =_= notepad.exe was all I knew how, press this compile.bat to compile, run.bat to run, don't ask questions

Be proud of Java. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eXSigHiaaKx32H0.htmlsi=R77CNVEkDBRtFwT8

Is it really like that? I do feel that way about C++, but I always thought C was simple enough that a student could learn every aspect of the language in a single semester.

The following is legal C syntax: struct S { /* ... */ } typedef T;

What blew my mind was this: typedef int FunctionType(int); FunctionType myFunction; Now myFunction is a function that takes an int an returns an int. Typedef's can alias function types, and you can use them in a function declaration. What's even crazier is that there is a use case for this, Tsoding Daily made a video about it.

@@fullaccess2645The use case (callbacks) exists in virtually every common programming language. It's just that the syntax for it in C is a bit weird. In C++, you can do it either this way, or two other ways which are not mutually compatible (struct which overloads operator() or std::function).

@@ruanpingshan Maybe not every aspect but certainly a lot. we learned C and then C++ in the same 1 semester course. it was a pretty intense course. but my knowledge of C feels a lot more complete despite it taking up less time.

Yes. It's easier to refactor/refine a simple program than a complex program. Simple first. Always. Premature complexity is a disease experienced by Enterprise developers.

@@potato9832 heh, I chuckled. I will steal this "Premature Complexity" term :)

@@PhilipAlexanderHassialis I also enjoy saying "premature abstractions" which is related to "premature complexity" given that abstractions are often correlated with complexity. You have my blessing to spread the word. Overly abstracted and overly complex code have been the bane of my programming existence. Not to mention all the proselytizing I've had to endure from holier than thou self-important coders quoting programming proverbs as if they were etched on stone tablets from Mount Sinai. I'm quite sour about it all, really. I've joined the crusade to bring back simplicity, efficiency, and performance. Let's end the tyranny of the OOP group and their abstractionalist devotees.

@potato9832 If you want to see the epitome of overabstraction, check out OpenAI’s Python module. their boilerplate code didn’t work out of the box, so I had to go digging through 30 layers just to find out what the hell I was actually working with. It’s codebases like that which showcases the true horrors of OOP.

Well c`s simplicity creates complexity

@@goporororo7404 No. Bad programmers and computer scientists create complexity.

I come from a .NET background, but I’ve been learning C for a few months now. I’ve learned more about C# these last few months because I finally understand how things work. Getting a basic understanding of memory allocation and pointers made me understand how badly I’ve written C# and Java code in the past. I’d reccomend everyone to learn a language without a Garbage Collector for that reason

oh i love that idea

public class Hey { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("That's offensive!"); } }

// Greeter class class Greeter { public void greet() { System.out.println("Hello"); } } // Hello class inherits from Greeter class Hello extends Greeter { // world name private String worldName; // constructor public Hello() { this.worldName = "world"; } // getter for worldName public String getWorldName() { return worldName; } // setter for worldName public void setWorldName(String worldName) { this.worldName = worldName; } @Override public void greet() { System.out.println("Hello, " + worldName + "!"); } } // HelloFactory class to create Hello objects class HelloFactory { // createHello method to create Hello Objects public static Hello createHello() { return new Hello(); } } public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { // Use the factory pattern to create a Hello object Hello hello = HelloFactory.createHello(); // Set the world name hello.setWorldName("world"); // Print the greeting using the getter hello.greet(); // Output: Hello, world! } }

@@fredoverflow public class App { static void main(String[] args) { IFactory

Haha! Close enough. :)

no way! our web dev module was all about ajax for a good while.

hi sabrina! hope you are doing well

@@ThePrimeTimeagen I am! Job is going great and I am having a blast exploring in my free time...doing edge machine learning to practice low-level. Still learning a lot from your content!

just skip on the OO all together it's not worth it. function overloading and templates are nice thoguh. But don't overdo templates, they can kill your compile times.

This is the wrong takeaway. It's not about being "smart", on the opposite, simple things are easier to understand.

Sounds more like an excuse/justification to not do this yourself than an observation about "this guy" or "why it works". If you can understand any high level language, then you also have the intellectual capacity to understand C and arena allocators. And while it's true that it takes time to learn something new, it's time spent expanding your toolset in a way that makes you a better programmer in any language. An obvious benefit. Sure, your employer/manager/lead might disagree, but then they don't understand that it's shooting yourself in the foot not to do it - which means they're also shooting the company's interest in the foot. I fail to see good reasons not to do it.

@@Muskar2 Yes and then there is also attention span and spacial Imagination. You can train those only so much, maybe at some point you find a way to break things down and it gets easier, but there is no guarantee.

@@75hilmar Sure. I have a close family member who has very limited intellectual capacity (ICD-10 F71), and they've been an extremely slow learner their entire life - so I do believe some things can't be changed - and there's certainly _some_ variety in who has an easier time learning than others. But you won't know what applies to _you_ until you try, that's my point. Arguing generally is typically an excuse. If you're passionate about software development then I think it's worth trying. The only good reason not to do it is if you've already tried really hard in many different ways and just can't find a way to enjoy learning about it. Perhaps you need a mentor that will inspire you or something. Moreover, if software development is just a way for you to make easy money, and not something you actually care about, then I think perhaps you'd just be better suited in another field. Or perhaps you're just not in a good mental state in your personal life and you've been neglecting that. Etc. Good luck!

@@melonhusk562 Good things take time, but there's a need for a C replacement, wether it's rust, or zig, doesn't really matter. But surely old C codebases will eventually pick a language to migrate their unsafe/unmaintainable C code to more modern languages.

​@@pierreollivier1pipe dream

Scheme enters the chat

Except with segfaults you are lucky if it is actually a segfault. It could also read random other memory from the process and keep going with fucked up data.

@@andrejsk6211 In practice this is almost immediately obvious, because there's no safety features that'll enable the language to keep going semi-correctly with garbage input. It'll just shit itself and die, perhaps not in the place where the issue originated, but pretty close. I've written almost every single weekday C++ for over a decade. Memory issues that actually caused me to really stare at the screen for hours can be counted on both hands.

thanks for ruining one of my favorite things

@@ThePrimeTimeagen As an alternative may I suggest checking out "Doom on NES!" by TheRasteri. Not running *on* the NES but *through* it in a clever way.

Well, C has enums and it really does enumerate :P

"Its a bit more verbose going `void method(MyStruct_t *self, Arg_t arg)` rather than something like `fn method(&self, arg: Arg)` but you can get away with it if you need to." Classes are not for syntactic convenience. They're there because they satisfy useful invariants.

​@@isodoubIetLike what?

@@andrejsk6211 Like for example imagine you have a class representing a sorted collection of numbers. The class author provides a member function insert that takes an element + some iteration functionality. You can now safely binary search over the collection, etc. The "invariant" here is the property that the numbers are sorted, which should hold from the instantiation of the collection until it is destroyed. As long as you can argue that each member function does not break that invariant, you have basically proved that those invariants hold throughout the lifetime of the program for all instances of this class. This is very powerful and greatly simplifies reasoning about the system. You can also make changes to the underlying representation of the collection. You can start from an array for ease of implementation then move on to, say, a b tree, without breaking anybody's code since all they care about are those invariants you guarantee in your API. Conversely, imagine that instead of a class you just have a simple struct. Now everyone that uses the struct has access to its underlying representation, which means they can do to it any operation they can do to an ordinary array. This means that if you want the elements to always be sorted, you must now verify that this is true for every single time the struct is used, anywhere in the codebase. Realistically, this is impossible. Further, because everyone has access to the underlying representation, you no longer have the ability to change it in the future. So for example if you find that a b-tree would perform faster for your use case instead of a bare array, well, tough luck, you have to hunt down every instance of the struct and make sure nobody's relying on parts of the array api that wouldn't also be present for the b tree api.

Nah, COBOL is still king of bureaucracy.

@@0xD1CE Its not the language its the developers, their culture and the way it affects the way they write code. I have never worked with COBOL developers but I would imagine there are a lot of practices that are in place with good reason given the systems that still exist which are written in COBOL.

@@sacredgeometry In the case of COBOL, it's not the devs that are bureaucratic but the language itself was literally designed to be. It's like filling out a form when populating each divisions. And since it has become so engrained into our financial systems with billions (yes billions) lines of code, it's nearly impossible to replace. But hey I guess that also means solid job security haha.

@@0xD1CEWhat does COBOL do that can’t be done in C? Billions of lines of code to do what?

@@CoderDBF Nothing. C can do whatever COBOL does. But C wasn't around as long as COBOL and that's the reason why our backbone systems weren't written in C. If we were to rewrite everything, it wouldn't be in C but in a much safer, stricter language, Rust perhaps.

​@@anon_y_mousseGigachad C 😅

Writing FFTs is fun when you have an intuition for the maths behind it

Is python really that simple? You have to deal with lots of different ways of doing things

@@ZombieLincoln666 as with any simple tool, if all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.

@@PaulSebastianM import(hammer)

Everyone writes bad code

If you have the balls, show us your codebases, let's see your perfect code

@@cristianbilu Go for it, I wrote something in C the other day: github xBiggs /logotools/blob/master/src/logoinsert.c

​@@saymehnameSanitizers exist.

why does it matter ? like I'm also learning C, and I can guarantee that my code is riddled with horrendous pattern, terrible naming/style,, and even more UB. But that's part of the process of learning, like sure you can learn it from a book or at school, but the best way to learn is to actually shoot yourself in the foot, When I started I wanted to do well so for me everything was about creating abstractions, and using the correct pattern for the job, and it's only by realising how terrible my code was to read and use that I've come to the conclusion that "Clean code" is terrible both for productivity, and one's sanity. In C I used to rely on pointers and casting, until I realised that casting should be done more intentionally at time because it can lead to strange promotion behaviours. My point being that sure all of that can be learn through college or books, but the best way to learn that is to actually do it yourself.

That would kind of defeat the point

Yeah it's fundamentally different actually

​@@isodoubIetThey both take literal input and generate substituted code which is then compiled as normal. It's not like erlang metaprogramming where they generate ASTs. C++ templates have expanded on that over time but their original form was little more than type matched macros.Feel free to go back to pre-standard C++ and play with them. Working with POD vs not was a mess. I use them regularly in retro development (ARM C++ 1.11, compiler by Norcroft). Over time templates were found/made to be Turing complete (I have had people who worked for me with PHD thesis in C++ metaprogramming and have their libs in Boost). They diverged more and more but they are still both code generation tools. Templates are first and foremost... a template. A macro is generally used as a form of templating. Functionally they are very similar. Typed and Turing complete don't really make it "fundamentally different" in practice.

I'm so jelly of jai beta testers. I'd love to try it. But I'm not sure I want to meet the requirements of figuring out how to get in. Especially not if it requires sucking up to JBlow in his streams, listening to him being a grumpy lone wolf who assumes the worst of other people - even though he does stream interesting coding problems.

@@Muskar2 He is just looking for people who will use the language and aren't beginners (it isn't super beginner friendly). He mentioned this in some stream, and someone clipped it, so you should be able to find the clip. I just sent him an email asking to join, explaining my experience, and what I plan on doing with the language. And I got lucky with the timing, and lucky in general, because a few days later I got an response saying I got added to the beta. There is no harm in trying. Worst case is that you get no response. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

@@m4rt_ I wrote him before, but thanks for the tip on how to appeal to him. I'll try again

@@m4rt_ Perhaps I should mention that I haven't been able to find the clip you were talking about, nor his email. I've only contacted him in stream chats and via Twitter DMs. So I'll spend a few hours looking for those things today.