Why are languages like C and C++ still being used today even

>>57807822
>Why not just do everything on Python or C#, for example?

>>57807822
Mostly due to the rigors of rotational velocidensity, although there's a lot of debate on both sides.

You'll have to come to your own conclusions.

>>57807822
Because some people actually enjoy programming

>>57807845
>>57807822 (OP)
>Why not just do everything on Python or C#, for example?

The advantage with using python over c++ is that you don't have to compile.
While it might take a long time to compile a large project, it also helps with finding stupid mistakes and it makes code execution faster.

A lot of applications does not require the speed as they rely on network information or user input or other slow sources.

>>57807905
>While it might take a long time to compile a large project

That's just C++ and a lot of optimizations.

>>57807822
>Why not just do everything on Python or C#, for example?

You are everything that is wrong with today's programmers. Do the society a favour and abandon IT or hang yourself.

>>57807822

Two reasons:

1. A metric fuckton of legacy code ensures that C, C++ and Java will haunt us forever.

2. For applications where you need every little bit of speed (operating systems, games, graphical stuff) C or C++ still are faster. You must understand that many people put a lot of energy in optimizing stuff here, down to optimizing assembly code.


But generally I agree. If it wasn't for programs that gets more and more bloated every year we could just use sweeter languages. But people are spoiled today, nobody waits 2 minutes for your OS to boot.

>>57807862
>>>57807845
>>>57807822 (OP) (OP)
>Why not just do everything on Python or C#, for example?

File: 20161122_230038.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>57807822

Every language has its role. With C/C++ you get greater control, speed, and it doesn't take up memory to emulate.

These things may not matter if you're making a dragon dildo emulator, but if you're making research/engineering grade software for analysis then you want something like C/C++.

Not sure about C but C++ gives you a level of control that is scary. Sometimes that power level is necessary for applications that need to be optimized in a very niche or specific way

>>57807822
my car gets on average 11mpg while having only 180hp

why they are using "complex" electronics to control it and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on r&d instead of just putting a larger gas tank?

>>57809653
>>>57807862
>>>>57807845
>>>>>57807822 (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP)

> ITT: I CANT GET INTO REAL PROGRAMMING.

>>57810129
C gives you even more control than C++, actually. There's a reason C gets chosen over C++ for core OS components, device drivers, and so on.

>>57807822
Maybe we want software to get exponentially faster along with the hardware instead of stagnating by introducing more overhead just because "hey, we can now!"

File: ^68B4ADE3B5545269C8A10DE42B10061F636A49A5BCEB22CA65^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (35KB, 614x503px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 614x503px

>>57807822
>why are efficient languages still used today
>we should just waste all our performance running inefficient programs

>>57810176
>>>57809653
>>>>57807862
>>>>>57807845
>>>>>>57807822(OP) (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP)

>>57814043
>>57810176
>>>57809653
>>>>57807862
>>>>>57807845
>>>>>>57807822 (OP)(OP) (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP)

>>57813068
Almost. most advancements this decade rely on massive parallelsim (GPUS anyone?)

once a c-style language lets us grok threads in a reasonably safe way, we'll hit the next plateau of software efficiency.

>>57814082
>c-style language
>threads in a reasonably safe way
threading isn't hard because of the syntax of the language, its hard because you need to do the thinking about how to divide tasks up into independent chunks, avoid race conditions while sharing data between them, etc.

Because only in C/C++ and ASM you can tell the CPU that data you allocated will be used once and so it should clear it from L1/L2/L3 cache