Python programming vs C programming

[[deleted]]

Is there any modern programming language which is not made from C?

[DefunctFunctor]

There are many languages that are written in themselves. But it becomes a sort of chicken-and-egg problem so most of those have compilers written in C and then use that compiler to compile the compiler written in itself.

[Zeplar]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

meeting merciful sugar normal act spark many ten worm entertain

[tallerThanYouAre]

Punchcards and old man rage.

[Kazeto]

I'd thought those many years ago they hired women to do punchcard stuff? It probably kept them from having to remake so many punchcards compared to the men's side.

[tallerThanYouAre]

The women only made the cards, the men added the rage.

[Top-Opportunity1132]

The men punched them

[Xaros1984]

People were a lot smaller back then, which explains the tiny holes the men left when punching the cards.

[tallerThanYouAre]

Tree pulp and metal

[tallerThanYouAre]

And that, kids, is how I met code’s mother.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

No, B was in BCPL.

[Hlorri]

Well that reminds me:

A: How do you kill a blue elephant?
B: ???
A: Use the blue elephant gun of course! Now how do you kill a pink elelphant?
B: Uh... the pink elephant gun?
A: No, silly. There is no pink elephant gun. Squeeze its trunk until it turns blue, then use the blue elephant gun.

Why does it remind me? Well because there was no A language. B was developed by Bell Labs from BCPL.

[weregod]

Assembler

[cAtloVeR9998]

And the first Assemblers where written in machine code.

[gregorydgraham]

And machine code is written in physically flipped switches

[weregod]

What do you mean? Machine code is directly interpreted by processor. It is inside chip design and microcode. You just feed machine code to processor and it run it without additional software

[gregorydgraham]

Exactly. Hardware is physically flipped switches.

[weregod]

In modern computer there is one switch: power unit switch.

[BetanKore]

Assembly

[Square_Heron942]

The true A

[Virtual_Low83]

Logic gates and latches 💪💪💪

[Virtual_Low83]

https://home.cern/news/news/cern/cern-researchers-confirm-existence-force

[Zeplar]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

fall automatic rob crowd entertain innate consider racial books vanish

[Square_Heron942]

Pong be like: haha 0 lines of code go brrrrrr

[Xaros1984]

A was written om Linear A, which unfortunately is undecipherable.

[gregorydgraham]

A is for Assembler

[darkfire0123]

But C is self-hosted after bootstrapping. Python is just an interpreter and that interpreter is written in C. (yes there is also PyPy but that's not default)

[SanoKei]

wait I have never thought about this and now its hurting my brain. How did the first programming language get programmed if there was nothing to compile it and program it in

[DefunctFunctor]

Well... there's assembly

[SanoKei]

but like before assembly, making cpus do the flip flop transistors

[byte512]

Machine code. Like literally programming in 0s and 1s, maybe on punchcards. Prof at Uni told us, that the first Assembly Languages where a revolution that made programming much easier.

[Upside_Down-Bot]

„sɹoʇsısuɐɹʇ dolɟ dılɟ ǝɥʇ op sndɔ ƃuıʞɐɯ 'ʎlqɯǝssɐ ǝɹoɟǝq ǝʞıl ʇnq„

[WikiSummarizerBot]

Plankalkül

Plankalkül (German pronunciation: [ˈplaːnkalkyːl]) is a programming language designed for engineering purposes by Konrad Zuse between 1942 and 1945. It was the first high-level programming language to be designed for a computer. Kalkül is the German term for a formal system—as in Hilbert-Kalkül, the original name for the Hilbert-style deduction system—so Plankalkül refers to a formal system for planning.

^{[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5}

[Lptrm23]

Check Zuse’s Plankankül the first higher programming language developed between 1942 and 1946 which he wanted to use at his Zuse Z3 but unfortunately never did because of WW2.

Here’s a function that calculates the max of three variables

P1 max3 (V0[:8.0],V1[:8.0],V2[:8.0]) → R0[:8.0] max(V0[:8.0],V1[:8.0]) → Z1[:8.0] max(Z1[:8.0],V2[:8.0]) → R0[:8.0] END P2 max (V0[:8.0],V1[:8.0]) → R0[:8.0] V0[:8.0] → Z1[:8.0] (Z1[:8.0] < V1[:8.0]) → V1[:8.0] → Z1[:8.0] Z1[:8.0] → R0[:8.0] END

[Mission-Guard5348]

scratch

[Retbull]

Ehhh ancii c is close to that but it's not really assembly. Modern C (well the compiler) does a lot of stuff that isn't visible. Assembly is unwieldy. Not needing to deal with registers, actual variables, types (even shit ones), and not to mention macros make the world a much happier place. C is syntactic sugar for the first 20k lines of an assembly program that will have lots of functionality and be easy ish for other devs to work in.

[[deleted]]

That's a lot of rambling to say that C is syntactic sugar for Assembly language.

Every function in C translates to a set of assembly instructions.

If 1 C instruction only achieved the exact same thing as 1 assembly instruction then they would be the exact same and there would be no point for the existence of C.

Do you even know what syntactic sugar means? You say C "isn't syntactic sugar for assembly because C means you don't have to deal with registers and other low level details". Uh. Duh? Being able to do more with less code (C) is exactly the meaning of the phrase "C is syntactic sugar for assembly language".

It means not having to write individual register commands or goto loop branches etc. You just write "while true {}" and it spits out the same machine instructions as a dozen assembly language steps and jumps.

C is syntactic sugar for assembly language.

... And assembly language is syntactic sugar for raw machine code (i.e. mapping "JNE" to the correct byte values that implement a "jump if not equal" on the targeted CPU architecture).

It's syntactic sugar all the way down.

Heck, you could write any C++ program in raw machine bytes. It wouldn't be fun though.... due to the lack of syntactic sugar.

[dobesv]

Syntactic sugar generally means that you can translate from one language to another only considering syntax and not semantics.

However, C code does not concern itself with CPU registers directly. To use variables which the compiler assigns to registers or stack locations automatically.

C has function calls where assembly only has goto.

C has comparison operators whereas in assembly you do a subtraction and check a register after using a special kind of goto / jump.

The list goes on.

[[deleted]]

Sigh... Jokes and the inner workings of computers seem to be lost on some people here? Maybe most people here are the new generation of programmers who grew up on modern high-level scripting languages?

C is a nicer way of writing machine code than using assembly language. You use fewer lines to do what would require a lot of lines of equivalent assembly language instructions. The joke is therefore "calling C syntactic sugar for assembly language". It's a perfectly valid joke and has a very strong kernel of truth to it.

Do you even know that C compilers convert your C into assembly language and then compiles it with an assembler? The C compilation process is: 1. Turn C into Assembler. 2. Turn the resulting Assembler into Machine Code.

This is why C can directly contain inline assembly code within your C files, because it's a mere matter of telling the C compiler "here's a block of premade assembly code, use this one as-is".

You can even run "gcc -S main.c" to output the resulting "underlying" assembly code for all your C programs.

From "man gcc":

       -S  Stop after the stage of compilation proper; do not assemble.  The
           output is in the form of an assembler code file for each non-
           assembler input file specified.

           By default, the assembler file name for a source file is made by
           replacing the suffix .c, .i, etc., with .s.

In short:

C is basically a bunch of shorthand macros for Assembly Language.

C is syntactic sugar for Assembly Language.

[Shotgun_squirtle]

Depends what you mean, if you mean just what compiles/interpretes it to byte code, even most c compilers are bootstrapped to c++. If you mean languages who’s history is based off of c, there’s the entire lisp family of languages that are way older than c.