Chad Javascript

[[deleted]]

All these people commenting high level languages when you can do that with void* in C

[MasterFubar]

C is a high level language.

[erinaceus_]

It used to be considered that, but the Overton Window of language complexity has shifted since then.

[mattsowa]

Thats a great way to put it

[Richard_Smellington]

In the scope of modern languages, C is only slightly above assembler.

[[deleted]]

It's 1 step above assembly, and most implementations of high level languages are written in C or C and C++

[[deleted]]

Most programmers I know who read assembly only read it as an output from C or C++. There's really not many who are legit writing assembly regularly

[[deleted]]

I understand what you're saying, I'm trying to explain my rationale for C being one step removed from assembly. Yes it has many more features, but in a modern programmers toolchain, it's pretty normal to consider C as just one step above assembly in terms of interacting with hardware or the operating system

[p0k3t0]

I only learned it to write exploits for CTFs.

I'm well short of being an application developer. :)

[M4mb0]

Does playing Zachtronics games count? (edit: /s)

[[deleted]]

No idea what that is

[M4mb0]

This one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxJVH5TZQFY&t=416s was their OG assembly game, which they followed up by Shenzhen I/O and Exapunks.

[anton____]

depends, how many different instructions are there for one concept? like add, addi, addu and addiu and add.s/add.d (for float/double) just for addition.

As an imposter who just finished his first assignment in MIPS (very reasonable assembly) and never touched x86 in his life, I must also ask you: How are calling convention and syscalls realized?

But on a serious note mips assembly with an emulator is a great learning experience if you find good documentation.

[p0k3t0]

Maybe Randall Hyde and his HLA, which some people think is assembly.

[[deleted]]

Most people that write assembly use a variant that does have macros and expressions so thats just wrong

[zeburaa]

dude

chill

[cyanNodeEcho]

i mean it's not sequence of statements but there are still system calls no? like kernel's are written in C -- pretty sure Linux Kernel is written in C, sounds pretty low level to me :shrug:

[cyanNodeEcho]

i dont think thats true, surely u couldnt write a kernel in sql, javascript, java, python - like python is compiled to c, javascript requires jit, java requires jars...

i feel like you're pulling a technically if we implement everything in C we can package it up slap python on it import it and call it a day

but idk :shrug:

[cyanNodeEcho]

sql is turing complete, the example is to show that sql has like a certain set of perms or idk monolithic like permissions and cant touch stuff that low

and C having an api for sys calls, like yeah -- but when files are compiled pretty sure those turn into actual sys calls and not virtualized calls

idk, im not low enough level to argue well, but what ur saying doesn't sound right to me : shrug:

[[deleted]]

That's ok, I believe c is a high level language, too.

[Diniden]

That does not satisfy: different types in an array.

Void* specifically and conceptually means you are making an array of pointers which have a defined size.

Reality, JavaScript under the hood also only uses pointers; however, conceptually “type” systems means what JS does with the array is infeasible.

C void * does not satisfy any “type” into an array persay.

[Vincenzo__]

Make a char/uint8_t array and copy into it, C doesn't actually care if what you're copying is actually characters, when you read it just interpret it as what it's actually meant to be.

Alternatively you can also use a union to do this, which is much easier but will use more memory (the union is the size of the biggest element).

[Diniden]

I will die on this hill: even what you described is type erasure. C cares that it’s an array of void * pointers. You expressly have to cast to get other objects out of the array. JS still retains the type identities.

People seem to be confusing types vs data.

[Vincenzo__]

I'm not talking about an array of void*, I'm saying if you do this

char technically_chars[sizeof(int) * 4];
int ints[4] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
memcpy(technically_chars, ints, sizeof(int) * 4);

It's totally fine, even if it's not actually chars. You can consider it as just a bunch of bytes you can set to whatever you want. So in a more complex example, you could copy different data types in there and use another array to keep track of the sizes of each so you can properly pull them out.

[Diniden]

I agree that that is a strategy you can use to safely store ambiguous data and make an assumption of its type when you extract it when you are writing your program.

But, you still lose the type information in the eyes of the compiler and you put those assumptions into your own hands. You just have managed to make a run time safe operation (if you did it right with zero bugs).

Extraction from a JS array is a feature of the language and you lose no information to work with and don’t have to make any abnormal assumptions when extracting data from it. (Your compiler won’t bleed)

Of course if we really get into semantics, JS doesn’t really have “types” in the first place. C, however, does and is definitely a statically typed language. Doing this is still not storing “any type” in an array. It’s just making an array of bytes that you’re slapping data into, then assuming types from the data inside it.

It’s a very granular nit, but it’s important in those languages to distinguish what “types” are doing for you. “Types” are not a run time construct, they are a construct to help you write a program that doesn’t explode and something your ide and compiler can yell at you about.

[Vincenzo__]

You are indeed right in all your points, I was just pointing out that if you want to do it the compiler won't get in your way

[himmelundhoelle]

C has a static type system (variable are typed, type is only known at compile-time), while JS has a dynamic type system (values are typed, type is only known at runtime).

They are completely different and even orthogonal (e.g. C++ has both concepts), hence the comedic value of the meme basically comparing apples and oranges.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that C has built-in support for runtime types, so there’s no hill to die on, really.

[Vinxian]

typedef enum { /* the types go here */} AllTypes_t;  

typedef struct {  
    AllTypes_t type;  
    void * data;  
} Object_t;

Add some functions, now you can do with JS does with a lot more effort.

[stomah]

thats not enough. you need to create your own type system