C with Asan or Valgrind is faster to write and just as performant (usually better) as Rust or C++. There's a reason the world runs on C, and only part of it is historical.
Now you just need to also write a testsuite that covers every possible path through your code and you've proved the absence of errors that Valgrind can find. I'm not sure that building such a test suite is less work than using a safer language.
I just can’t recommend using it for new code in light of the sexy new alternatives that can compile down to the same binary with source code that’s way more intuitive and readable.
I do have nostalgia for C since it was my first language, and I think a lot of people are in the same boat, which is a problem. That’s why I think we need to stop teaching C. Kate Gregory has a good cppcon talk on the topic: https://youtu.be/YnWhqhNdYyk
"C" is glorified assembly and learning assembly is *fundamental* to understand how computers work. "C" *should* be the first language programmers learn when they get serious (ex: first year computer science classes).
When I write "C" I know exactly what is going on with each of my CPU cycles and where my variables are being allocated. The compiler is a dead simple translator who doesn't play funny tricks behind my back.
"C" is the perfect language to learn and have fun with the underlying architecture.
"C" is very easy to learn and not that hard to master. It is fast to compile, fast to run and available everywhere.
I don't like "C++". All code bases maintained by more than one single developer (no matter the language it is written in) become rotten with time but, from my experience, the larger the amount of features a language has, the worst this becomes. All big "C++" projects I have worked on (except for one) were horrendous. This also happens in "C", but in "C" I can just "grep" the keyword and immediately know where it comes from.
I don't like "Rust". I've tried to learn it twice and failed. There are too many places where I lose track what the compiler is doing, the (formal?) specification is big and complex and keeps growing (approaching "C++" absurdity levels). There is never an "obvious" way to do one thing. I get "Rust" is a test bench for language designers, but they are creating an over-engineered monster that is not easy to use (think "low gravity ink injection pen" vs "pencil")
So... "C" is perfect for me (and many others). It's simple, fast and as powerful as it gets, which means it is also fun. As others have mentioned on this thread, together with "cppcheck", "valgrind", "electric-fence" and friends it is also as secure as any other.
> The compiler is a dead simple translator who doesn't play funny tricks behind my back.
When did you last look at the assembly your compiler produces at O2 or higher? Because decades of C compiler development would very much like to disagree with that statement.
> As others have mentioned on this thread, together with "cppcheck", "valgrind", "electric-fence" and friends it is also as secure as any other.
Where do all the memory safety problems in any nontrivial C or C++ codebase come from then? Do you think that for example the Chrome team is just incompetent? It is certainly possible to write safe C, but that involves _a lot_ more effort than using valgrind. You could for example write MISRA-C. Together with extensive manual checking those rules lead to fairly save C, but the effort needed is really big.
> "C" is glorified assembly and learning assembly is fundamental to understand how computers work. "C" should be the first language programmers learn when they get serious (ex: first year computer science classes).
I agree that a CS education may include an understanding of low level details, but if you want to learn assembly and understand assembly, use assembly.
> When I write "C" I know exactly what is going on with each of my CPU cycles and where my variables are being allocated. The compiler is a dead simple translator who doesn't play funny tricks behind my back.
It really depends on what you tell the compiler. And if you’re using GNU, g++ compiles both C and C++. The compiler will aggressively optimize your code down to practically nothing, and you’ll find that the resulting machine code has high probability of being identical whether you wrote it in C or C++, so it’s a matter of choosing the language that is shorter and easier to read/understand.
I really do respect where you are coming from, but in my opinion one should use the tool that’s most appropriate for the job in light of what’s available. Just because we can keep using lead paint in buildings, or wire wrapping/vacuum tube amplifiers in electronics, doesn’t mean we should. Maybe for fun, maybe as a hobby, but not professionally, and that’s the mindset I approached this with.
