What is an example in which knowing C will make me write better code in any other language?

Question

In the Stack Overflow podcasts, Joel Spolsky constantly harps on Jeff Atwood about Jeff not knowing how to write code in C. His statement is that \"knowing C helps you write bet

Answer 1

Technically, all of the deficiencies of C would force you to code around them; making you write more code -> making you more experienced in general. Lacking any portable integer bigger than 32-bits, for example, C has, in the past, made me write my own bignum library.

The lack of implicit memory, resource and error management (garbage collection, RAII, automatically-called constructors/destructors, maybe exceptions) force C users to write a lot of initialization, error-handling and cleanup code. It may just be me, but I'm never tired of writing such code. I go and read the documentation of every external function I call, return to my code and check for every return value and other failure-indicative stuff. It even makes me feel safe!

This last point is probably the biggest one to be made in favor of the argument. You can only write so many malloc()/free() pairs before you start to analyze the lifetime of every single variable you come across in every single language! C++'s automatic-storage objects don't help this disorder, either.

Writing truly portable C code often requires the programmer to be free of a lot assumptions about the host system - think sizeof(), CHAR___BITS, unsigned long, UINT_MAX. While this hasn't helped me write better code in other languages, it has helped me think about possible alternate implementations: how a tiny microprocessor could still run my C code, generating a gazillion RISC instructions for my simple one-line statement. (That is another thing; not many other languages map to and from a given assembly language so easily in my head. Then again, that may just be me.)

Of course, none of these arguments go only for C. @S.Lott has a valid point - Fortran might be an equally good alternative. But there is so much C code around! A whole personal computer system from top to bottom -applications to libraries to drivers to kernel- is available in source code in C. It would be such a waste if you could not read it.

Answer 2

I think it is worth knowing some low-level language, and there are pragmatic reasons to choose C:

• It's low-level, close to assembler
• It's widespread

Understanding the whole stack is valuable. Sometimes you need to debug something's guts. Sometimes you cannot fix a performance problem without low-level knowledge (this is often not the case, e.g., when the performance problem is purely algorithmic, but sometimes it is).

Why is C widely considered the quintessential "bottom of the stack", and not some other language(s)? I think this because C is a low-level programming language, and C won. It has been a while now, but C was not always as dominant. To take just one famous example, the proponents of Common Lisp (which had its own ways of writing low-level code) were hoping their language would be popular, too, and eventually lost.

The following are usually implemented in C:

• operating systems (Unix variants, Windows, many embedded operating systems)
• higher-level programming languages (many popular implementations of Java, Python, etc)
• (obviously) reams of popular open source projects

I'm not a hardware person, but I gather that C has influenced CPU design heavily, too.

So if you believe in understanding the whole stack, learning C is, from a pragmatic perspective, the best choice.

As a caveat, I think it's worth learning assembler, as well. Although C is close to the metal, I didn't fully understand C until I had to do some assembler. It is occasionally helpful to understand how functions calls are actually performed, how for loops are implemented, etc. Less important, but also useful, is having to (at least once) deal with a system without virtual memory. When using C on Windows, Unix, and certain other operating systems, even humble malloc does a lot of work under the covers that is easier to appreciate, debug and/or tune if you've ever had to deal with manually locking and unlocking memory regions (not that I would recommend doing so on a regular basis!)

Answer 3

Knowing C helps you to write better code in C. I guess that the example of Joel Spolsky is of little use in C++ or Objective-C where specific classes for manipulating strings exist and have been crafted with performance in mind. Moreover, using C tricks in other languages may be couter productive.

Nevertheless, C knowledge is very helpful to understand general concepts in other languages and what is behind the hood in many situations.

Answer 4

For the purposes of argument, suppose you wanted to concatenate the string representations of all the integers from 1 to n (e.g. n = 5 would produce the string "12345"). Here's how one might do that naïvely in, say, Java.

String result = "";
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
    result = result + Integer.toString(i);
}

If you were to rewrite that code segment (which is quite good-looking in Java) in C as literally as possible, you would get something to make most C programmers cringe in fear:

char *result = malloc(1);
*result = '\0';
for (int i = 1; i <=  n; i++) {
    char *intStr = malloc(11);
    itoa(i, intStr, 10);
    char *tempStr = malloc(/* some large size */);
    strcpy(tempStr, result);
    strcat(tempStr, intStr);
    free(result);
    free(intStr);
    result = tempStr;
}

Because strings in Java are immutable, Integer.toString creates a dummy string and string concatenation creates a new string instance instead of altering the old one. That's not easy to see from just looking at the Java code. Knowing how said code translates into C is one way of learning exactly how inefficient said code is.

Answer 5

In Python, say you have a function

def foo(l=[])
  l.append("bar")
  return l;

On some version of Python, available about a year ago, running foo() for times, you'd get a really interesting result (i.e. ["bar","bar","bar","bar]).

It seems that someone implemented the default parameters as a static variable (and without resetting it), so unexpected results happen.

Perhaps my example was contrived - a friend of mine who actually likes Python found this peculiar bug, but the fact of the matter is all of these languages are implemented in C or C++. Not knowing and not understanding concepts that are fundamental to the base language means that you won't have an in-depth understanding of languages that are built on top of that.

I find all the "why bother with C/C++/ASM question silly". If you're inclined enough to learn a language, that means that you're curious enough to get into it the first place. Why stop at just before C?

Answer 6

inefficient code (eg loops of string+=) are typically inefficient in any language. what difference does it make if someone explains why it is inefficient in one language or the other? knowing C, but not realizing that a method is inefficient, is no different than knowing python and not realizing the same.