Printable View
What is your favorite programming language?
Some have been grouped together, but I've tried to be fair to so many languages...
My mistake, I had meant to add more languages, but accidentally hit Enter...
Many of the listed languages are quite similar, but the point of my asking this poll wasn't to start a flame war, but more along the lines of personal preference for a language, not to debate strengths & weaknesses.
My three favorites are not listed -
Assembler
Algol
Cobol
Neither was mine. Back when I was into coding, my fave was VisualBasic cause it was so easy and I could make games. lol
Visual Basic!:)
I'm learning Java and HATE it.:mad:
C/C++ is really powerful.
So it's my favourite.
I don't know Assembly, so I can't comment on that.
But I heard it's hard as hell.
As toss up between Java and C#. But .net has been annoying me lately, so Java gets the nod today. That'll show 'em.
:D
im going to have to give it to C++ its so versitile (sp?)
I'm happy with C/C++, it's the one I currently understand the best :)
Assembly is ok, but I wouldn't want to do anymore than basic hardware interfacing with it...
i'd have to go with c++.. mainly cuz that's all i know until i get outta school and have time to learn something else.
C, not C++
because it was developed at the same time as UNIX ...
C++ is like the industrial concrete block, you can build fast with it, but brick is better (C).
assembly isn't easy, but you can make programs that are more optimized than if you did them in C.
assembly code isn't exactly versatile between linux/windows (not just compilation), since you might sometimes have to take the CPU into account (I dunno how what I'm learning now will work on 64bit CPUs, since my code runs on a 32bit cpu) ...
That's why I like Algol. It was the language used as a foundation for B and later C.
I was told that a C is just bunched up ASM ... and that C compiler, takes the C code, translates its to ASM, then gives it to an assembler ...
is there anything between binary code (true binary instructions) and ASM?
Quote:
Originally posted by ua549
That's why I like Algol. It was the language used as a foundation for B and later C.
AFAIK there is absolutely no need to expand C statements into multiple Assembler instructions before generating code. In fact there are mainframe CPUs that do not have an assembly language, but do have an Algol compiler. Algol code is compiled directly into micro ops for execution. I mentioned Algol because I'm not sure if the 48 bit proc I'm thinking about, Unisys A Series has a C compiler.
AFAIK, C is translated into ASM and then given to assembler to do the rest ...
wrong(AFAIK): C > machine code
right(AFAIK): C > assembly > machine code
Quote:
Originally posted by ua549
AFAIK there is absolutely no need to expand C statements into multiple Assembler instructions before generating code. In fact there are mainframe CPUs that do not have an assembly language, but do have an Algol compiler. Algol code is compiled directly into micro ops for execution. I mentioned Algol because I'm not sure if the 48 bit proc I'm thinking about, Unisys A Series has a C compiler.
Why do you think that is the way all C compilers work?Quote:
Originally posted by slavik
AFAIK, C is translated into ASM and then given to assembler to do the rest ...
wrong(AFAIK): C > machine code
right(AFAIK): C > assembly > machine code
C is an implementation of Algol and Algol does not work that way.
If C generates assembly source code then it can be captured, modified and assembled later. That is not the case with the C compilers I am familiar with.