We have a very versatile terminal/sniffer application which can do all sorts of things with TCP, UDP and serial connections.
We are looking to make it extensible -- i.e, allow people to write their own protocol parsers, highlighters, etc.
We created a C-like language for extending the product, and then discovered that for some coders, this presents a steep learning curve.
We are now pondering the question: Should we stick to C or go with something like Ruby or Lua?
C is beautiful for low-level stuff (like parsing binary data), because it supports pointers. But for exactly that reason, it can be tough to learn.
Ruby (etc) are easy to learn, but don't have pointers, so anything that has to do with parsing binary data gets ugly very fast.
What do you think? For extending a product that parses binary data -- Ruby/Lua or C/C++?
Would be great if you could give some background when you respond -- especially if you've done something similar.
Wireshark, the "world's foremost network protocol analyzer", is also a packet sniffer/analyzer, formerly also called Ethereal. It uses Lua to enable writing custom dissectors and taps, see the manual.
However, note that I have not used it, so I cannot tell how nice/effective/easy to learn the API is.
Like TCL, Lua was designed to be tightly integrated with an application. Personally, I find Lua's syntax and idioms to be much easier to deal with than TCL.
Lua is easy to integrate with an existing system, and easy to extend. It is also fairly easy to create safe sandboxes in which user-supplied code can run without full access to the innards of your product.
If you have an API written does it make a difference? The person using the C-like API would only have to understand the difference between passing by value or reference.
Your core does one thing very good, so fine. Let it be that way. I think you should create an API based on std in/out, just like the way of good unix design. Then anyone can extend it in any language of choice.
Tcl was designed with the goal to allow scripting for C programs, so it would be much easier to implement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcl#Interfacing_with_other_languages
I second Johan's idea. Although in past when I had to do something like this I stuck to
C language APIs and people were restricted to use C language only. But now I look at it,
I realize that it would have been more efficient if we would have done the way Johan describes
PS: And by coincidence it was a protocol testing app using packet sniffer
perl, sed, awk, lex, antler, ... These are languages I'm somewhat familiar with that I'd like to write something like this in. It depends on the data flow, though.
It's really hard to say what the correct thing to use is. Something that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is to keep in mind that the scripts will have bugs. It's very easy to design something like this in such a way that bugs in the scripts (especially run time errors) either just show up a "error in script" or kill the whole system.
You should keep that the scripts should be unit testable and that failures should be reproducible.
I don't think it matters what you do as long as you do one thing, drop the in-house language. It sounds like you choose to make C into a scripting language. One issue I see with this is it will look familiar to C programmers, but not be the same. I can't imagine you have mimicked the semantics of C that would make existing C programmers comfortable. And as you have mentioned, others will find it hard to learn.
The company I am working at have developed their own language. It uses XML for structure so parsing is easy. The language grows "as needed." Meaning if a feature is missing then it will be added. I'm pretty sure it went from an XML database to something that needed control flow. But my point is that if you aren't thinking about building it as a language, then you'll be limiting what users can do with it unintentionally.
Personally I've been looking at how I can get the company to start taking advantage of Lua. And specifically Lua for several reasons. Lua was developed as an extension language that was general purpose. It easily interfaces with the language, including Python and Ruby. It is small and simple for use by non-programmers (not really needed in your case). It is simple enough to replace XML, INI... for configuration settings and powerful enough to replace the need for another programming language.
http://www.lua.org/spe.html
Related
I want to write a library that is dynamically loadable and callable from C code, but I really don't want to write it in C - the code is security critical, so I want a language that makes it easier to have confidence that my code is correct. What are my options?
To be more specific, I want C programmers to be able to #include this, and -l that, and start using my library just as if I had written it in C. I'd like programmers in other languages to be able to use their favourite tools for linking to C libraries to link to it. Ideally I'd like that to be possible on every platform that supports C, but I'll settle for Linux, Windows and MacOS.
Anything that compiles to native code. So you might Google for that - "languages that compile to native code." See, e.g., Programming languages that compile to native code and have the batteries included
C++ is often the choice for this. Compiles to native code and provided you keep your interfaces simple, easy to write an adapter layer.
Objective C and Fortran are also possible.
It sounds like you are looking for a language with ABI compatibility or which can be described as resulting in native code. So long as it can be compiled to a valid object file (typically an .obj or .o file) which is accepted by the linker, that should be the main criteria. You also then want to write a header file as a convenience for any client code which is written in C (or a closely related language/variant thereof).
As mentioned by others, you need a pretty good reason for choosing a language other than C as it is the lingua-franco of low-level/systems software. Assembler is an option, although harder to port between platforms. D is a more portable - but less widespread - alternative which is designed to produce secure, efficient native code with a minimum of fuss. There are many others.
Almost every security critical application I know of is written in C. I don't believe that there are any other language that has higher real status in producing secure applications.
C is being said to be a poor language for security by people who don't understand.
If you want C programmers to use your library, use C. Doing anything else is tying one hand behind your back whilst trying to walk on a balance beam (the gymnastics equipment). Sure, there are dozens of other languages that are CAPABLE of interfacing to C, but it typically involves using a C layer and then stuffing the C data types into a language specific data type (Java Objects, Python Objects, etc, etc), and when the call is finished, you use the same conversion back to a C data type. Just makes it harder to work with, and potentially slower if you don't get all the design decisions right. And people won't understand the source code, so won't like to use it (see more about this below).
If you want security, then write very good code, wearing your "security aspects" hat firmly on at all times, find a security mailing list or website and post it there for review, take the review comments on board, understand the comments, and fix any comments that are meaningful to fix. Distribute the source code to the users, so people can see what your code does. Those that understand security will know what to look for and understand that you have done a good job (or a bad job, whichever is applicable) - and those who don't will hopefully trust the right pople. If it's good, people will use it. If it's "hidden", and not easy to access, you won't get many customers, no matter what language you use.
Don't worry, you won't reveal anything more from releasing source. If there is a flaw in the code, and it is popular (or important) enough, someone will find the flaw, even if you publish only binaries. For those skilled in reverse engineering, not having source code is only a small obstacle.
Security doesn't stem from using a specific language or a specific tool, it stems from good design and good basic understanding of the problems with security.
And remember security by obscurity (whether that means "hidden source code" or "unusual language" or something else obscure) is false security.
You might be interested in ATS, http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/. ATS compiles via C, can be as efficient as C, and can be used in a way that is ABI-compatible with C. From the project website:
ATS is a statically typed programming language that unifies implementation with formal specification. It is equipped with a highly expressive type system rooted in the framework Applied Type System, which gives the language its name. In particular, both dependent types and linear types are available in ATS. The current implementation of ATS (ATS/Anairiats) is written in ATS itself. It can be as efficient as C/C++ (see The Computer Language Benchmarks Game for concrete evidence) and supports a variety of programming paradigms
ATS's dependent and linear type system helps produce static guarantees about your code, including various aspects of resource management safety.
Chris Double has been writing a series of articles exploring the power of ATS's type system for systems programming here: http://bluishcoder.co.nz/tags/ats/. Of particular note is this article: http://bluishcoder.co.nz/2012/08/30/safer-handling-of-c-memory-in-ats.html
This document covers aspects of calling back and forth between ATS and C code: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6DYQApEqKgyBzMbvpCI87DBfLdNAQ3E60u1hUiMoU0
The main downside is that dependently-typed programming is still a daunting prospect, even for non-systems programming. The syntax of the language is also a bit weird: consider lexical quirks such as the use of abst#ype as a keyword. Finally, ATS is to some degree a research project, and I personally don't know whether it would be sensible to adopt for a commercial endeavour.
Theoretically, it's going to be Fortran: less indirection (as in: my array is [here], not just a pointer to here, and this is true of most but not all of your data structures and variables).
However... There are many gotchas and quirks in Fortran: not, perhaps, as many as in C but you probably know your way around C rather better than Fortran. Which is the point behind most of the comments saying 'Know your code' - but do you really know what your compiler is doing?
Knowing you, I'm prepared to take it on trust that you do, for C. Most programers don't. You do not know and cannot know what a local JVM or JIT compiler does, and that's a black hole in your security model if you're using Java or C# r scripting languages.
Ignore anyone who tells you that the hairy-chested he-men of secure computing write their own assembler: they probably don't even know the security errors they're making in any and all nontrivial projects they release. Know your compiler, indeed.
You could write it in lua - providing a C API to a Lua library is relatively straight forward. C++ is also an option, though of course you'd have to write C wrappers and make sure no exceptions can escape your functions. But honestly, if it's security critical the minor inconveniences of the C language shouldn't be that much of a big deal. What you really should be doing is prove the correctness of your program where feasible, and test extensively where it's not.
You can write a library in Java. JNI is normally used to call C from Java, but it can be used the other way around.
There is finally a decent answer to this question: Rust.
I am faced with the task of building a new component to be integrated into a large existing C codebase. The component is essentially a kind of compiler, and will be complicated enough that I would like to write it in OCaml (for reasons along the lines of those given here). I know that OCaml-C interaction is possible (as per the manual and this tutorial), but it looks somewhat painful.
What I'd like to know is whether others here have attempted large-scale integration of OCaml and C code, what were some of the unexpected gotchas they found, and whether at the end of the day they concluded that they would have been better off just writing the new code in C.
Note, I'm not trying to start a debate about the merits of functional versus imperative programming: let's just say we assume that OCaml happens to be the right tool for the job I have in mind, and the potential difficulty in integration is the only issue. I also don't have the option of rewriting the rest of the codebase.
To give a little more detail about the task: the component I need to implement is a certain kind of query optimizer that incorporates some research ideas my group at UC Davis is working on, and will be integrated into PostgreSQL so that we can run experiments. (A query optimizer is, essentially, a compiler.) The component would be invoked from C code, would function mostly independently but would make a certain number of calls to other PostgreSQL components to retrieve things like system catalog information, and would construct a complex C data structure (representing a physical query plan) as output.
Apologies for the somewhat open-ended question, but I'm hoping the community might be able to save me a little trouble :)
Thanks,
TJ
Great question. You should be using the better tool for the job.
If in fact your intentions are to use the better tool for the job (and you are sure lexx and yacc are going to be a pain) then I have something to share with you; it's not painful at all to call ocaml from c, and vice versa. Most of the time I've been writing ocaml calling C, but I have written a few the other way. They've mostly been debug functions that don't return a result. Although, the callings back and fourth is really about packing and unpacking the ocaml value type on the C side. That tutorial you mention covers all of that, and very well.
I'm opposed to Ron Savage remarks that you have to be an expert in the language. I recall starting out where I work, and within a few months, without knowing what a "functor" was, being able to call C, and writing a thousand lines of C for numerical recipes, and abstract data types, and there were some hiccups (not with unpacking types, but with garbage collection of an abstract data-types), but it wasn't bad at all. Most of the inner loops in the project are written in C --taking advantage of SSE, external libraries (lapack), tighter optimized loops, and some in-lined hand optimized assembly.
I think you might need to be experienced with designing a large project and demarcating functional and imperative sections. I would really assess how much ocaml you are going to be writing, and what kind of values you want to pass to C --I'm saying this because I'd be fearful of recommending to someone to pass a recursive data-structure from ocaml to C, actually, it would be lots of unpacking tuples, their contents, and thus a lot of possibility for confusion and bugs.
I one wrote a reasonably complex OCaml-C hybrid program. I was frustrated by what I found to be inadequate documentation, and I ended up spending too much time dealing with garbage collection issues. However, the resulting program worked and was fast.
I think there is a place for OCaml-C integration, but make sure it is worth the hassle. It might be simpler to have the programs communicate over a socket (assuming such IO operations won't eliminate the performance you want). It might also be more sane to just write the whole thing in C.
Interoperability is the achilles heel of standalone implementations of statically typed languages, particularly those without JIT compilation like OCaml. My own experience having been using OCaml for over 5 years is that the only reliable bindings are across simple APIs that do little more than pass large arrays, e.g. LAPACK. Even slightly more complicated bindings like those to FFTW took years to stabilize and others, like OpenGL and GLU, remain an unsolved problem. In particular, I found major bugs in binding code written by two of the authors of the OCaml compiler. If they cannot get it right then there is little hope for the rest of us...
However, all is not lost. The solution is simply to use looser bindings. Rather than handling interoperability at the C level with a low-level type-unsafe interface, use a high-level interface like XML-RPC with string passing or even over sockets. This is much easier to get right and, as you say, will let you leverage the enormous practical benefits offered by OCaml for this application.
My rule of thumb is to stick with the language / model / style used in the existing code-base, so that future maintenance developers inherit a consistent and understandable set of application code.
The only way I could justify something like what you are suggesting would be if:
You are an Expert at OCaml AND a Novice at C (so you'll be 20x as productive)
You have successfully integrated it with a C library before (apparently not)
If you are at all more familiar with C than OCaml, you've just lost any "theoretical" gain from OCaml being easier to use when writing a compiler - plus it seems at though you will have more peers familiar with C around you than OCaml.
That's my "grumpy old coder" 2 cents (which used to only cost a penny!).
I came from a C-Java-C# world... where the parentheses were VIP citizens and types were loved by everyone : )
Sometimes I need to develop some piece of code to automatize a repetitive task, convert some complex frame, order an input file, send programatic request to a server... you know what I mean?
But sometimes I wonder how easier could be write the same in some language like Python... or these DoItSimple languages : ) -with all respect.
So which language should I use for this kind of tasks?
Thank you very much in advance!
You should really investigate one of the more popular scripting languages, like Python/Ruby/Perl. Any one of those will set you in good stead for what you're trying to achieve. Which one of those you should use is a matter for heated debate around the water cooler - or more likely, the coffee machine.
That said, there's something to be said for learning tools like 'awk' and 'sed', not to mention some of the extended capabilities in 'vim' for achieving day-to-day tasks
For a long time, you will always be faster with the languages you know. However, if you just want to experience something new and eventually have another useful tool in your belt, I'd try python. It's very handy, and is not too far of a jump from the C# world (if you've ever done BASIC, it feels VERY similar).
BTW - AlBlue's suggestion about awk/sed/vim(macros/etc) is A+. I will often hop onto a Linux box at work to handle any repetitive file tasks (on Windows you can get cygwin, we just don't have it available at work).
I love PHP and perl for these things (having grown out of sed and awk, for the most part), but if don't rule out the bash shell (I use Cygwin's on windows systems), and even the Windows scripting language (yes, batch files still exist) can do more than I once thought.
Why don't you just take a list of the languages you find attractive and write some small pieces of code. Then you'll be able to select the one that is "yours".
I Say Ruby or Python
My favorite is Ruby for its high-purity object model and generally awesome syntax and power.
However, Python has the same general capabilities and is about twice as popular.
Traditionally, Perl is used for sysadmin automation and other scripting tasks, plus obviously sed, awk, and sh.
But languages like Perl and PHP started as ad-hoc scripting interpreters, whereas Python and Ruby were real object-oriented languages. Perl and PHP have since grown object-oriented revisions, but now they have all the complexity of the first "nice try" coupled with the "oh we should make it a real language" extensions.
Ruby, in particular, is the product of a real language designer who combined the ultra-pure object model of Smalltalk with the populist syntax of Perl.
If you are coming from the C world, I would say Lua because not only is Lua a fine scripting language, but it also comes with a super API for binding it to C programs, which means in the long run you'll be able to use the same technology to script your C programs.
Lua also stands well on its own merits; I have written elsewhere about why I prefer Lua to Python.
Google for something like "perl vs ruby vs python" or "best general purpose scripting language" ... You should find some comparisons. I personally like ruby most cause it lacks the nasty $'s in front of all variables. If you're familiar with c# and the .net framework, IronRuby and IronPython would give you access to all the classes you already know.
I'll probably get downvoted for recommending this, but I suggest starting with "writing C in Perl", and working (or not) towards whatever level of idiomatic Perl that suits you.
My reason for suggesting this is that even if your Perl code is structured much like C, and even if you don't avail yourself of all of Perl's syntactic sugar, you'll still see an increase in productivity. Starting with C-style Perl just allows you to make use of idioms that you are already familiar with (ie C-style for loops vs Perl's foreach) while learning the language.
As I know, PHP is one of the scripting language to do tasks such as: order an input file, send programatic request to a server... and PHP is C-like syntax, and said to be the easiest to learn(you don't even have to learn before you using it, you just use it while learning it). But PHP is not a general purpose scripting language.
Python is a general purpose scripting language and has a strong type checking, bug it's not C-like, I'm afraid you would not like it.
I myself use PHP for the most time for text processing, network(socket, HTTP...) tesing. ^_^
These are all fine scripting languages, and IMHO it probably won't make a huge difference which one you choose. I hope I won't be downvoted for injecting a realistic answer in what is mostly a religious argument. It's basically like when you agonize over which college to go to, and someone points out that as long as they're both good schools, it's not likely to make a big difference in your life.
I use Perl for writing CLI programs because it's the first scripting language I learned (20+ years ago when it was the lingua franca for writing CGI scripts on the nascent WWW). I now use PHP for writing web apps because my last job used it for our intrantet web pages, and it has lots of nice built-in features for web and SQL programming; but I'm sure that with the write CPAN modules I could be just as productive with Perl.
If there's a language that's popular with other programmers you work with and respect, that's probably one of the best reasons to choose it, since you'll have a convenient support community. SO is nice, but even better is being able to learn from a local expert.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Joel and company expound on the virtues of learning C and how the best way to learn a language is to actually write programs using that use it. To that effect, which types of applications are most suitable to the C programming language?
Edit:
I am looking for what C is good at. This likely does not coincide with the best way of learning C.
Code where you need absolute control over memory management. Code where you need to be utterly in control of speed versus memory trade-offs. Very low-level file manipulation (such as access to the raw devices).
Examples include OS kernel, and embedded apps.
In the late 1980s, I was head of the maintenance team on a C system that was more than a million lines of code. It did database access (Oracle), X Windows graphics, interprocess communications, all sorts of good stuff. It ran on VMS and several varieties of Unix. But if I were to recreate that system today, I sure wouldn't use C, I'd use Java. Others would probably use C#.
Low level functions such as OS kernel and drivers. For those, C is unbeatable.
You can use C to write anything. It is a very general purpose language. After doing so for a little while you will understand why there are other "higher level" languages available.
"Learn C", by all means, but don't don't stick with it for too long. Other languages are far more productive.
I think the gist of the people who say you need to learn C is so that you understand the relationship between high level code and the machine internals and what exaclty happens with bits, bytes, program execution, etc.
Learn that, and then move on.
Those 100 lines of python code that were accounting for 80% of your execution time.
Small apps that don't have a UI, especially when you're trying to learn.
Edit: After thinking a little more on this, I'd add the following: if you already know a higher-level language and you're trying to learn more about C, a good route may be to not create a whole new C app, but instead create a C DLL and add functions to it that you can call from the higher language. In this way you can replace simple functions that your high language already has to ensure that you C function does what it should (gives you pre-built testing), lets you code mostly in what you're familiar with, uses the language in a problem you're already familiar with, and teaches you about interop.
Anything where you think of using assembly.
Number crunching (for example, libraries to be used at a higher level from some other language like Python).
Embedded systems programming.
A lot of people are saying OS kernel and device drivers which are, of course, good applications for C. But C is also useful for writing any performance critical applications that need to use every bit of performance the hardware is capable of.
I'm thinking of applications like database management systems (mySQL, Oracle, SQL Server), web servers (apache, IIS), or even we browsers (look at the way chrome was written).
You can do so many optimizations in C that are just impossible in languages that run in virtual machines like Java or .NET. For instance, databases and servers support many simultaneous users and need to scale very well. A database may need to share data structures between multiple users (threads/processes), but do so in a way that efficiently uses CPU caches. In C, you can use an operating system call to determine the size of the cache, and then align a data structure appropriately to the cache line so that the line does not "ping pong" between caches when multiple threads access adjacent, but unrelated data (so called "false sharing). This is one example. There are many others.
A bootloader. Some assembly also required, which is actually very nice..
Where you feel the need for 100% control over your program.
This is often the case in lower layer OS stuff like device drivers,
or real embedded devices based on MCU:s etc etc (all this and other is already mentioned above)
But please note that C is a mature language that has been around for many years
and will be around for many more years,
it has many really good debugging tools and still a huge number off developers that use it.
(It probably has lost a lot to more trendy languages, but it is still huge)
All its strengths and weaknesses are well know, the language will probably not change any more.
So there are not much room for surprises...
This also means that it would probably be a good choice if you have a application with a long expected life cycle.
/Johan
Anything where you need a minimum of "magic" and need the computer to do exactly what you tell it to, no more and no less. Anything where you don't trust the "magic" of garbage collection to handle your memory because it might not be as efficient as what you can hand-code. Anything where you don't trust the "magic" of built-in arrays, strings, etc. not to waste too much space. Anything where you want to be able to reason about exactly what ASM instructions the compiler will emit for a given piece of code.
In other words, not too much in the real world. Most things would benefit more from higher level abstraction than from this kind of control. However, OS code, device drivers, and a few things that have to be near optimal in both space and speed might make sense to write in C. Higher level languages can do pretty well competing with C on speed, but not necessarily on space.
Embedded stuff, where memory-usage and cpu-speed matters.
The interrupt handler part of an OS (and maybe two or three more functions in it).
Even if some of you will now start to bash heavily on me now:
I dont think that any decent app should be written in C - it is way too error prone.
(and yes, I do know what I am talking about, having written an awful lot of code in C myself (OSes, compilers, VMs, network protocols, RT-control stuff etc.).
Using a high level language makes you so much more productive. Speed is typically gained by keeping the 10-90 rule in mind: 90% of CPU time is spent in 10% of your code (which you should optimize first).
Also, using the right algorithm might give more performance than optimizing bits in C. And doing things right in C is so much more trouble.
PS: I do really mean what I wrote in the second sentence above; you can write a complete high performance OS in a high level language like Lisp or Smalltalk, with only a few minor parts in C. Think how the 70's Lisp machines would fly on todays hardware...
Garbage collectors!
Also, simply programs whose primary job is to make operating-system calls. For example, I need to write a short C program called timeout that
Takes a command line as argument, with a number of seconds for that command to run
Forks two child processes, one to run the command and one to sleep for N seconds
When the first of the child processes exits, kills the other, then exits
The effect will be to run a command with a limit on wall-clock time.
I and others on this forum have tried several different solutions using shells and/or perl. All are convoluted and none quite do the right thing. In C the solution will be easy, because all the OS facilities are right where you can get at them.
A few kinds that I can think of:
Systems programming that directly uses Unix/Linux or Win32 system calls
Performance-critical code that doesn't have much string manipulation in it (e.g., number crunching)
Embedded programming or other applications that are severely resource-constrained
Basically, C gives you portable, efficient access to the native capabilities of the machine; everything else is your responsibility. In particular, string manipulation in C is tedious, error-prone, and generally nasty; the most effective way to do extensive string operations with C may be to use it to implement a language that handles strings better...
examples are: embedded apps, kernel code, drivers, raw sockets.
However if you find yourself more productive in C then go ahead and build whatever you wish. Use the language as a tool to get your problem solved.
c compiler
Researches in maths and physics. There are probably two alternatives: C and C++, but such features of the latter as encapsulation and inheritance are not very useful there. One could prefer to use C++ "as a better C" or just stay with C.
Well most people are suggesting system programming related things like OS Kernels , Device Drivers etc. These are difficult and Time consuming. Maybe the most fun thing to with C is console programming. Have you heard of the HAM SDK? It is a complete software development kit for the Nintendo GBA , and making games for it is fun. There is also the CC65 Compiler which supports NES Programming (Althought Not Completely). You can also make good Emulators. Trust Me , C is pretty helpful. I was originally a Python fan, and hated C because it was complex. But after yuoget used to it, you can do anything with C. Now I use CPython to embed Python in my C Programs(if needed) and code mostly in C.
C is also great for portability , There is a C Compiler for like every OS and Almost Every Console And Mobile Device. Ive even seen one that supports some calculators!
Well, if you want to learn C and have some fun at the same time, might I suggest obtaining NXC and a Lego Mindstorms set? NXC is a C compiler for the Lego Mindstorms.
Another advantage of this approach is that you can compare the effort to program the Mindstorms "brick" with C and then try LEJOS and see how it goes with Java.
All great fun.
Implicit in your question is the assumption that a 'high-level' language like Python or Perl (or Java or ...) is fast enough, small enough, ... enough for most applications. This is of course true for most apps and some choice X of language. Given that, your language of choice almost certainly has a foreign function interface (FFI). Since you're looking to learn C, create a module in the FFI built in C.
For example, let's assume that your tool of choice is Python. Reimplement a subset of Numpy in C. Since C is a pretty fast language, and has, in C99, a clear numeric library interface, you'll get the opportunity to experience the power of C in an appropriate setting.
ISAPI filters for Internet Information Server.
Before actually write C code, i would suggest first read good C code.
Choose subject you want to concentrate on, basically any application can be written in C, but i assume GUI application will be not your first choice, and find few open source projects to look into.
Not any open source project is best code to look. I assume that after you will select a subject there is a place for another question, ask for best open source project in the field.
Play with it, understand how it's working modify some functionality...
Best way to learn is learn from somebody good.
Photoshop plugin filters. Lots and lots of interesting graphical manipulation you can do with those and you'll need pure C to do it in.
For instance that's a gateway to fractal generation, fourier transforms, fuzzy algorithms etc etc. Really anything that can manipulate image/color data and give interesting results
Don't treat C as a beefed up assembler. I've done some serious app's in it when it was the natural language (e.g., the target machine was a Solaris box with X11).
Write something with some meat on it. Write a client server chess program, where the AI is on a server and the UI is displaying in X11; once you've done that you will really know C.
I wonder why nobody stated the obvious:
Web applications.
Any place where the underlying libraries are entirely in C is a good candidate for staying in C - openGL, Lua extensions, PHP extensions, old-school windows.h, etc.
I prefer C for anything like parsing, code generation - anything that doesn't need a lot of data structure (read OOP). It's library footprint is very light, because class libraries are non-existent. I realize I'm unusual in this, but just as lots of things are "considered harmful", I try to have/use as little data structure as possible.
Following on from what someone else said. C seems a good language to implement the language in which you write the rest of your software.
And (mutatis mutandis) the virtual machine which runs the rest of your software.
I'd say that with the minuscule runtime environment and it's self-contained nature, you might start by creating some CLI utilities such as grep or tail (or half the commands in Unix). Anything that uses only STDOUT, STDIN and file manipulation is a good candidate.
This isn't exactly answering your question because I wouldn't actually CHOOSE to use C in such an app, but I hope it's answering the question you meant to ask--"what would be a good type of app to use learn C on?"
C isn't actually that bad a language--it's pretty easily to understand your code at an assembly language level which is quite useful, and the language constructs are few, leaving a very sparse language.
To answer your actual question, the very best use of C is the one for which it was created--porting itself (and UNIX) to other CPU architectures. This explains the lack of language features very well; it also explains the existence of Pointers which are really just a construct to make the compiler work less--any code created with pointers could be created without it (just as well optimized), but it becomes much harder to create a compiler to do so.
digital signal processing, all Pure Data extensions are written in C, this can be done in other languages also but has had good success in C
Does anyone have any experience with doing this? I'm working on a Java decompiler right now in C++, but would like a higher level language to do the actual transformations of the internal trees. I'm curious if the overhead of marshaling data between languages is worth the benefit of a more expressive and language for better articulating what I'm trying to accomplish (like Haskell). Is this actually done in the "real world", or is it usually pick a language at the beginning of a project and stick with it? Any tips from those who have attempted it?
I'm a big advocate of always choosing the right programming language for each challenge. If there is another language which handles some otherwise tricky task easily, I'd say go for it.
Does it happen in the real world? Yes. I am currently working on a project which is made up of both PHP and objective-c code.
The trick is, as you pointed out, the communication between the two languages. If at all possible, let each language stick to its own domain, and have the two sections communicate in the simplest way possible. In my case, it was XML documents sent via http. In your case, some kind of formatted text file might be the answer.
Marshalling costs depend on the languages and architecture you're working with. For example, if you're on the CLR or JVM, there are low-cost interop solutions available - though I know you are working with probably unmanaged C++.
Another avenue is an embedded domain-specific language. Tree transformations are often expressible via pattern matching and application of a relatively small number of functions. You could consider writing a simple tree pattern-matcher - e.g. something that looks like Lisp s-exprs but uses placeholders to capture variables - with associated actions that are functions that transform the matched subtree.
John Ousterhout, the inventor of Tcl/Tk was a stong advocate of multi-language programming and wrote quite extensively about it. In order to do it, you need a clean interface mechanism between the languages you are using for it. There are quite a few mechanisms for this. Examples of different mechanisms for doing this are:
SWIG (Simplified Wrapper and
Interface Generator can take a c
or c++ (or several other languages)
header file and generate an
interface for a high level language
such as perl or python that allows
you to access the API. There are
other systems that use this
approach.
Java supports JNI, and various
other systems such as Python's
ctypes, VisualWorks DLL/C
connect are native mechanisms
that allow you to explicitly
construct the call to the lower
level subsystem.
Tcl/Tk was designed explicitly to be
embeded, and has a native API
for a C library to add hooks into
the language. The constructs for
this resemble argv[] structures in
C, and were designed to make it
relatively easy to interface a
command-line based C program into
Tcl. This is similar to the above
example, but coming from the opposite
direction. Many scripting languages
such as Python, Lua and Tcl support
this type of mechanism.
Explicit glue mechanisms such as
Pyrex, which are similar to a
wrapper generator, but have their
own language for defining the
interface. Pyrex is actually a
complete programming language.
Middleware such as COM or
CORBA allow a generic
interface definition to be built
externally to the application in an
interface definition language
and language bindings for the
languages concerned to use the
common interface mechanism.