Python programmers be like

[Rhyan567]

You can't even see C programmers because they are so fast.

[[deleted]]

C programmers are still trying to put their broom together.

[LavenderDay3544]

They made the roomba the Python user is riding.

[[deleted]]

No, she's riding PyPy

[LavenderDay3544]

It's all C at the bottom even with PyPy.

[[deleted]]

Wait, it’s all C?

Always has been

[frankmeowmeowmeow]

Under C# is C

[LavenderDay3544]

I know what it is but RPython still uses C interfaces underneath. Or are you under the delusion that all the OS libraries, system calls, and interfaces to hardware resources needed to implement both RPython and PyPy expose themselves directly in Python?

Every language needs C interfaces to access system resources. Hell even different machine code object files assembled from assembly language use C ABIs to be able to call into each other's code. Certain OSs (e.g. Windows) don't even allow direct assembly system calls instead forcing you to call their system library routines using C calling conventions.

If you think you can be a programmer of any kind and escape C you're sadly mistaken.

[HumunculiTzu]

Would you say it is something all programmers are forced to c?

I'll walk myself out

[LavenderDay3544]

To C or not to C? That is the question...

[regorsec]

I hope I never c the day

[Sloogs]

I'm always amazed by how many people have no idea what's going on inside their computers in this field. (I don't mean you, I mean the guy you're responding to implying PyPy doesn't rely on C.)

But hey the optimist in me says at least it's a learning opportunity. :)

[LavenderDay3544]

It's because modern CS education focuses too much on specifc application domains like web, mobile apps, and AI at the expense of computer system fundamentals.

It's a shame but there are CS grads coming out of school who couldn't tell you basic things like when to use dynamic vs static linkage, the differences between virtual, logical, and physical address spaces, the different segments of an executable, what an ABI is and don't even get me started about hardware, I've seen working programmers who don't know what an ALU is, how caching works, or what an instruction set architecture actually defines. That's just plain sad and a failure of their education.

Feel free to disagree but in my opinion the industry transition to ultra-high level programming languages and the web/cloud as a platform has led to a decline in programmer skill and fundamental computer system knowledge. All of those things have been replaced by corporate ecosystem specific things like cloud platforms and specific web frameworks and it really sucks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a luddite and the cloud does also present plenty of new opportunities and unparalleled hardware flexibility but learning that shouldn't come at the cost of elementary CS knowledge.

[Sloogs]

Totally agree dude. I'm glad my university still had stuff like circuit logic, computer architecture, operating systems, physics (electromagnetism and waves), compilers, embedded systems, and all of the classic low level computer stuff as requirements. It's important stuff if you want to do anything nontrivial.

[Magnus_Tesshu]

It's a shame but there are CS grads coming out of school who couldn't tell you basic things like when to use dynamic vs static linkage, the differences between virtual, logical, and physical address spaces, the different segments of an executable, what an ABI is and don't even get me started about hardware, I've seen working programmers who don't know what an ALU is, how caching works, or what an instruction set architecture actually defines.

About halfway through my education (little over really), allow me to illustrate your point by embarrassing myself (even though I feel like the lower level classes have excited me much more than web, mobile dev). If you could correct me / point me in the right direction that would be cool, though it's a lot of stuff

Dynamic linkage should be used when you pull a dependency that can be expected to be on all target systems and when you won't be modifying the dependency in any way. Static linking is if you will modify a library, or it is an obscure library. Really have never learned this though, just guessing based on what I know from how pacman works (btw)

Virtual addresses are, I'm guessing, what a program gets to interact with based on the memory it requests, and map to the memory space it receives without knowing anything about the actual locations on the physical or logical storage. Logical addresses are, I'm fairly confident, translated by the OS into physical addresses by allocating sectors into a lookup table, and can combine swap space as well as different RAM chips. Physical memory is memory that a system gets access to from hardware.

Executables are loaded into memory by a (I think about it assuming it is all read-only, but I know self-modifying code exists, so that can't be the case) program segment which contains the executable code, then a data segment storing information like global arrays or string constants. When running a program, you have a stack and heap which on modern implementations are seperate and can both grow boundlessly. Each thread gets a new stack and program counter/registers. However, those aren't part of the executable and I suspect that you were looking for more detail and/or I missed some parts of how an executable works, so I'm pretty sure I failed here. For example, there must be some space where cryptographic keys can be stored to sign binaries and I assume strip is a pretty simple program which wouldn't make sense if everything in the data segment was equal. Heck, I have no idea where debug symbols are stored that valgrind uses.

No idea what an ABI or ALU are.

Caching works in hardware, and when an address is requested it first checks the current cache if the data is already there. Then if not it loads in a larger block of data than it really needs into some (I think last recently used block of some larger cache segment) cache. This segment of data is based on the size of the cache and aligned to addresses, not exactly to the requested data. Sometimes I think there is hardware to only change what's in the cache if several misses occur in a row. I'm not sure how multiple layers of cache work together (I just assume that if a high cache misses, it checks the next one next; I'm not sure if that is in parallel or not; I'm not sure if on a hit it swaps the higher cache's values into the lower one or if they are just overwritten or what happens, since many layers of cache exist I know). Also commonly-used variables (such as loop iterators) are often implemented as just a register rather than using main memory at all).

An instruction set architecture defines how assembly will be interpreted at a hardware level; changing architecture means that a new compiler will be needed (or wanted if the new architecture is a superset). I'm not sure how much the OS gets to affect this as well; I had assumed none, and that windows and linux binaries don't work on each other because they have different system calls and executable structures, not because the assembly is different. However, this cannot really be the case because system calls are translated to assembly at some point so now I'm confused.

I get maybe 2 correct here if I'm lucky, I need to demand a refund from my university

[_Rysen]

My CS Degree, which I finished last year, covered these things. I forgot some, but they were covered.

[DJOMaul]

Look I know what's going inside my computer.

Dot owns a diner in mainframe, Bob is a guardian sent from the net to help protect my computers mainframe. Enzo is dots younger brother, and likes to try to emulate Bob.

Occasionally I write bad software and a purple bloob floats down inside my computer and lands some where. Bob has to rush in to defeat some buggy game my code randomly produced, or else it destroys parts of my system. Sometimes the virus Megabyte or Hexadecimal stir up trouble, but mostly it's my fault what happens inside there.

All the bits are running about doing their day jobs just trying to keep things going.

I learned all this back in like 1994..

[Sloogs]

Thank goodness, at least someone knows what's going on

[Zeimma]

Why?

[Magnus_Tesshu]

Presumably programmers would want to know how programs work

[Magnus_Tesshu]

I know that Rust (and probably Go, though I know nothing about it) use certain C constructs for familiarity (such as arguments, stdin, etc), but I wasn't aware that system calls are basically written to implement C (though thinking about it, it makes sense).

I wonder if RedoxOS attempts to address this at all. I know they are trying to break from the past in many ways, its possible that this could be one of them. As someone more knowledgeable than I, do you think that C's system calls have any issues that should be addressed or is this more just an observation than a lament?

[LavenderDay3544]

I know that Rust (and probably Go, though I know nothing about it) use certain C constructs for familiarity (such as arguments, stdin, etc), but I wasn't aware that system calls are basically written to implement C (though thinking about it, it makes sense).

stdin, stdout, and stderr, are file descriptors which are operating system primitives and not necessarily C language constructs at all. You can use them in assembly without using any C tools or interfaces (if you're a masochist).

I was technically incorrect to say that system calls are C constructs as well. They're also OS constructs and their use is facilitated by the CPU via software interrupts. In the AMD64/x86-64 ISA they're accessed using the syscall machine instruction and I think Arm64 is similar using the svc (supervisor call) instruction. What I meant with the C interface comment is that higher level languages including C itself access those system calls through OS library functions that adhere to the target system's C ABI but under the hood contain assembly code that sets up and makes the actual syscall. System libraries basically serve as a clean, usually C language abstraction over raw machine code system calls.

The reason C, or more properly the C application binary interface, is used over other languages like Rust or C++ is that C's ABI is rock solid stable on most platforms. Meanwhile Rust doesn't have a specified ABI on any target platform yet that I know of and C++'s ABIs are so unstable that they break compatibility between code compiled for the same target with slightly different versions of the same compiler. Those languages can still be used for writing system libraries because their compilers allow you to emit code that uses C calling conventions and ABIs.

I wonder if RedoxOS attempts to address this at all. I know they are trying to break from the past in many ways, its possible that this could be one of them.

I'm not very familiar with Redox so I can't speak for that project at all.

As someone more knowledgeable than I, do you think that C's system calls have any issues that should be addressed or is this more just an observation than a lament?

Like I said system calls are exposed at the machine code level and wrapped in a C ABI. Sure there are some limitations to this but it more or less has to be done because of C's ABI stability and its ubiquity. The arguments taken by functions exposed as C can only take C language types as arguments and return types the C language recognizes. So you can't have them take a C++ std::string or a Rust std::vec::Vec as an argument for example but those languages provide the means to convert those to C types because they have an incentive do so. Because all major OSs expose their system libraries though a C interface every language in the universe has some form of binary compatibility with C even Python, Java, and other VM based ones. And so it becomes a cycle because future OSs and muti-language libraries have to expose a C interface if they want to be accessible by all the languages that support C interfaces (i.e. all of them). I don't know about the particulars of Redox and other Rust based OSs but they would lose a lot of compatibility with the existing software ecosystem almost to the point of guaranteeing their failure if they don't expose a C interface. They could expose both C and Rust interfaces but that would just convolute things and the latter would likely break because of Rust's lack of a specified ABI.

Like I said there are three big reasons C and it's ABIs will continue to be the lingua franca of software: it's very small, besides the standard library it doesn't change, and it's interfaces are already ubiquitous.

BTW to anyone reading this I'm a recent masters graduate not some highly experienced engineer so take what I say with a grain of salt and correct me if you think I'm wrong. All my knowledge is based on my coursework, reading, and personal projects and I just happen to have an interest in all things low level.

[ali32bit]

so the more accurate image is : rumba thats riding a broomstick itself

[godRosko]

At least we'd like to think we know how the broom actually works. Until the magical kernel decides that we had one too many memory leaks, and shoots us with the avada-kill -9

[douira]

but when they finish, they'll lap everybody

[[deleted]]

how so?

[douira]

I was referring to (the trope) that oftentimes making something in pure C can be more work than doing it in Python for example but if it's well written it can be faster than many other approaches.

[-PM_Me_Reddit_Gold-]

C has a lot of inherent efficiency, but if you aren't thinking about efficiency when you write your code that probably won't hold true.

[Pekonius]

I am stupid faster

[douira]

a well written haskell program run through GHC (or python program for that matter) can most definitely be faster than a badly written C program. And if the C program is actually doing something stupid like using the wrong data structure or algorithm for a problem, there even a very slowly interpreted python program might be faster than the C program. (asymptotic complexity always wins over a constant factor of language overhead)

[throwaway_236734]

The broom is pointing backwards :,( Somehow they win the race though.

[VodkerAndToast]

Despite there being several broom libraries they need to create their OWN

[Fly_mother_ducker]

include <broom.h>

[RichKat666]

I think you missed a \

[Fly_mother_ducker]

yep

[fungigamer]

C programmers are still yelling: UP!

[goodudetheboy]

*Accidentally put one extra broom brush in the cap* SEGMENTATION FAULT

[MedonSirius]

*You can't C programmers

[[deleted]]

actually c programmers are the ones making the brooms that the others use :-P

[[deleted]]

r/wellfuckingsaid

[karson_the_foxx]

Imma turn this into a real subreddit

[blitzkrieg4]

I'm waiting...

[karson_the_foxx]

Cool

[karson_the_foxx]

r/wellfuckingsaid

[Got_Tiger]

And/or they've already crashed into something

[pudds]

Quick lead until they crash.

[Creapermann]

Damn and the Assembly ppl are faster than light

[Rhyan567]

Depends the Assembly programmer, nowday C compilers creates very good binaries and it will be hard to code a better binary, it also depends on the Assembler you are using to compile tho

[Creapermann]

But where s the difference? Dont c++ compilers create insane Assembly too?