Talk:C (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:44, 31 August 2025

Revision as of 04:45, 1 September 2025

Line 201:

:::::::::::::I think any form of words should omit Python or any other language by name. C is efficient for lots of reasons, like optimised compilers that create native machine code, static typing, efficient memory management <small>although actually the garbage collection issue is a bit more nuanced than many suppose</small> etc. However we can say all that without referring to any other language. An article on C just has to explain that one reason for writing in C is it creates efficient and fast code (which also makes it low energy). [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Unsure why Python, the currently most popular language,<ref>{{cite web|title=TIOBE Index |url=https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/}}</ref> should be omitted. I don't see an issue with comparisons, especially when they're reasonably sourced. But that said, mine is not a strong stance. What words should go in? And where? [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]} 18:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I suppose that explaining the reasons for which C implementations are more efficient is okay; however, I am not sure where to find sources for those claims that people will accept as "reliable".

::::::::::::::I know that as a rule of thumb, unoptimizing compilers tend to be approximately 9 times faster unoptimizing interpreters; however, I have no "reliable" source for that claim.

::::::::::::::I know that static typing, manual memory management, second class arrays, fixed width integers, undefined behavior, pointers and pointer arithmetic, and various other features contribute to C having a low overhead. However, I am not sure what "reliable" source to cite for those claims.

::::::::::::::I put the word "reliable" in quotes because I disagree with Wikipedia as to what sources are reliable. Personally, I think that arXiv, Stack Overflow, and Stack Exchange are typically reliable; however, it seems that Wikipedia does not agree. [[User:CycleSortSupreme|CycleSortSupreme]] ([[User talk:CycleSortSupreme|talk]]) 04:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"developers have had way longer time to optimize (compiled) C implementations"

::::::::C is approximately 1.53 times older than Python. Python is 34 years old. C is 52 years old.