Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

chromatic (983)

chromatic
  (email not shown publicly)
http://wgz.org/chromatic/
Blog Information [technorati.com] Profile for chr0matic [technorati.com]

Journal of chromatic (983)

Saturday August 18, 2007
04:34 PM

Why I am Not a C Programmer

[ #34149 ]

I just wrote this code for Parrot. I know what it does. I know why it does what it does. I just can't support a language that both allows and requires this:

union { const FLOATVAL *__c_ptr; FLOATVAL *__ptr; } __ptr_u;

#define const_cast_float(b) (__ptr_u.__c_ptr = &(b), __ptr_u.__ptr)

#if INTVAL_SIZE == DOUBLE_SIZE
#  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(INTVAL *)(const_cast_float(f)) == 0)
#else
#  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(HUGEINTVAL *)(const_cast_float(f)) == 0)
#endif


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Why I am Not a C Programmer 16 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • C is all about trading "clean code" for speed and portability. One one end of the code cleanliness spectrum, is a magical language where the word "DWIM" compiles to the exact code you need to solve your problem. This tends to be slow because it needs to try an infinitely large number of programs before one works. It does have nice syntax, though. On the other end of the spectrum is a programming language where you solder transistors together until applying current to the input produces the output you ex
    • Guh. Slashcode killed my paragraphs. You get the idea though.
      • Use "preview" first and you would have known. And it has a mode, "plain old text", that retains line breaks without having to resort to HTML tags.
  • I just can't support a language that both allows and requires this...

    You say you can't support such a language, but your actions say something different. You're developing for a project, Parrot, that is implemented in C supports the language.

    If you don't want to support the language C, write Parrot in something else. What's that? C has many advantages in terms of portability and performance over alternatives for a project like Parrot? Also, C has this huge installed base, which guarantees high-quality i

    • Also, C has this huge installed base, which guarantees high-quality implementations and a large, experienced programming community.

      Stop, you're killing me!

      Complaints aside, how would it be different if you did support it?

      I wouldn't be trying to replace it, that's for sure.

      • Also, C has this huge installed base, which guarantees high-quality implementations and a large, experienced programming community.

        Stop, you're killing me!

        So, what is it that you find funny above? That C compilers are of high quality or that there's a large, experienced programming community surrounding C or both?
        I guess you could criticize C compilers for quality, but everything's relative. What language implementations have higher quality compilers available?

        The experience and size of the C programmin

        • That C compilers are of high quality or that there's a large, experienced programming community surrounding C or both?

          Ever try to write a cross-platform C99 application? The standard's most of a decade old now. It'd be lovely if compilers could support it. (Microsoft only has a few thousand programmers. I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.)

          I'd also love to meet a few members of this large, experienced programming community. I could put two or three of them to work!

          So, which effort of y

          • Ever try to write a cross-platform C99 application? The standard's most of a decade old now. It'd be lovely if compilers could support it. (Microsoft only has a few thousand programmers. I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.)

            I have to admit, I haven't done a lot of checking for strict C99 compatibility. From what I'm given to understand, everybody except Microsoft does an excellent job of supporting the C99 standard.

            Microsoft not supporting cross platform development. Shocking!!

            I'd also love to m

  • For us ignoramuses in the audience, how is that any better than const FLOATVAL cf; float * f = (FLOATVAL *)?

    • Compilers warn (rightfully so) that comparing floating point values is notoriously inaccurate. One decent way to compare them anyway is to cast them to pointers and then compare them as integers. Of course, to do that, sometimes you have to cast away constness, hence the ugly, awful, horrible union hack.

      • Why can’t you just use
        #if INTVAL_SIZE == DOUBLE_SIZE
        #  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(INTVAL *)&(f) == 0)
        #else
        #  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(HUGEINTVAL *)&(f) == 0)
        #endif
         ?

      • Ugh, I mangled it in my last post (stupid &...), but I was curious why you didn't cast away constness using a cast to FLOATVAL*. gcc -Wall doesn't carp about it on my system:

        const float cf;
        float * f = (float *)&cf;

        • gcc -Wall doesn't report very many errors. We have -Wcast-qual enabled, which does warn on that construct.

          • To me that say the problem in this case isn't C, but -Wcast-qual. I tend to just assume that since a cast says that you deliberately chose to break the rules, it's always a sign that the programmer decided to do something risky. I don't find it particularly helpful for the compiler to complain about the rule he broke, since he already broke it on purpose. YMMV, of course.

            • It's awfully easy to cast away constness accidentally, as you have to put const on all of the casts to retain it. It's a useful warning.

              • So the warning is valid but should be ignored here.

                I'd prefer the simpler-but-generates-a-warning over the ugly-mess-to-work-around-warning code.  Unless you've got -Werror, which is just annoying, and there really should be a way to fine-tune warnings (because you really do know what you're doing here).

                Come to think of it, what about
                #if INTVAL_SIZE == DOUBLE_SIZE
                #  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(const INTVAL *)&(f) == 0)
                #else
                #  define FLOAT_IS_ZERO(f) (*(const HUGEINTVAL *)&(f) ==

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.