this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
85 points (86.3% liked)

Programming

20885 readers
96 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31184706

C is one of the top languages in terms of speed, memory and energy

https://www.threads.com/@engineerscodex/post/C9_R-uhvGbv?hl=en

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arendjr@programming.dev 30 points 3 days ago (15 children)

I would argue that because C is so hard to program in, even the claim to machine efficiency is arguable. Yes, if you have infinite time for implementation, then C is among the most efficient, but then the same applies to C++, Rust and Zig too, because with infinite time any artificial hurdle can be cleared by the programmer.

In practice however, programmers have limited time. That means they need to use the tools of the language to save themselves time. Languages with higher levels of abstraction make it easier, not harder, to reach high performance, assuming the abstractions don’t provide too much overhead. C++, Rust and Zig all apply in this domain.

An example is the situation where you need a hash map or B-Tree map to implement efficient lookups. The languages with higher abstraction give you reusable, high performance options. The C programmer will need to either roll his own, which may not be an option if time Is limited, or choose a lower-performance alternative.

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 8 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I understand your point but come on, basic stuff has been implemented in a thousand libraries. There you go, a macro implementation

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And how testable is that solution? Sure macros are helpful but testing and debugging them is a mess

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You mean whether the library itself is testable? I have no idea, I didn't write it, it's stable and out there for years.

Whether the program is testable? Why wouldn't it be. I could debug it just fine. Of course it's not as easy as Go or Python but let's not pretend it's some arcane dark art

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 17 hours ago

Yes I mean mocking, faking, et. al. Not this particular library but macros in general

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)