Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
In this age of many languages, there seems to be a great language for just about every task and I find myself professionally struggling against a mantra of "nothing but C is fast", where fast is really intended to mean "fast enough". I work with very rational open-minded people, who like to compare numbers, and all I have are thoughts and opinions. Could you help me find my way past subjective opinions and into the "real world"?
Would you help me find research as to what if any other languages could be used for embedded and (Linux) systems programming? I very well could be pushing a false hypothesis and would greatly appreciate research to show me this. Could you please link or include good numbers so as to help keep the "that's just his/her opinion" comments to a minimum.
So these are my particular requirements
memory is not a serious constraint
portability is not a serious concern
this is not a real time system
In my experience, using C for embedded and systems programming isn't necessarily a performance issue - it's often a portability issue. C tends to be the most portable, well supported language on just about every platform, especially on embedded systems platforms.
If you wish to use something else in an embedded system, it's often a matter of figuring out what options are available, then determining whether the performance, memory consumption, library support, etc, are "good enough" for your situation.
"Nothing but C is fast [enough]" is an early optimisation and wrong for all the reasons that early optimisations are wrong. If your system has enough complexity that something other than C is desirable, then there will be parts of the system that must be "fast enough" and parts with lighter constraints. If writing your code, for example, in Python will get the project finished faster, with fewer bugs, then you can follow up with some C or assembly code to speed up the time-critical parts.
Even if it turns out that the entire code must be written in C or assembly to meet the performance requirements, prototyping in a language like Python can have real benefits. You can take your working Python prototype and gradually replace parts with C code until you reach the necessary performance.
So, use the tools that let you get the development work done most correctly and most quickly, then use real data to determine where you need to optimize. It could be that C is the most appropriate tool to start with sometimes, but certainly not always, even in embedded systems.
Using C for embedded systems has got some very good reasons, of which "performance" is only one of the minor. Embedded is very close to the hardware, you need manual memory adressing to communicate with hardware. All the APIs and SDKs are available for C mostly.
There are only a few platforms that can run a VM for Java or Mono which is partially due to the performance implications but also due to expensive implementation costs.
Apart from performance, there is another consideration: you'll most likely be dealing with low-level APIs that were designed to be used in C or C++.
If you cannot use some SDK, you'll only get yourself in trouble instead of saving time with developing using a higher level language. At the very least, you'll end up redoing a bunch of function declarations and constant definitions.
For C:
C is often the only language that is supported by compilers for a processors.
Most of the libraries and example code is probability also in C.
Most embedded developers have years of C experience but very little experience in anything else.
Allows direct hardware interfacing and manual memory management.
Easy integration with assembly language.
C is going to be around for many years to come. In embedded development its a monopoly that smothers any attempt at change. A language that need a VM like Java or Lua is never going to go mainstream in the embedded environment. A compiled language might stand a chance if it provide compelling new features over C.
There are several benchmarks on the web between different languages. Most of them you will find a C or C++ implementation at the top as they give you more control to really optimize things.
Example: The Computer Language Benchmarks Game.
It's hard to argue against C (or other procedure languages like Pascal, Modula-2, Ada) and assembly for embedded. There is a large history of success with those languages. Generally, you want to remove the risk of the unknown. Trying to use anything other than C or assembly, in my opinion, is an unknown. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with a mixed model where you use one of the Schemes that go to C, or Python or Lua or JavaScript as a scripting language.
What you want is the ability to quickly and easily go to C when you have to.
If you convince the team to go with something that is unproven to them, the project is your cookie. If it crumbles, it'll likely be seen as your fault.
This article (by Michael Barr) talks about the use of C, C++, assembler and other languages in embedded systems, and includes a graph showing the relative usage of each.
And here's another article, fittingly entitled, Poor reasons for rejecting C++.
Ada is a high-level programming language that was designed for embedded systems and mission critical systems.
It is a fast secure language that has data checking built in everywhere. It is what the auto pilots in airplanes are programmed in.
At this link you have a comparison between Ada and C.
There are situations where you need real-time performance, especially in embedded systems. You also have severe memory constraints. A language like C gives you greater control over execution time and execution space.
So, depending on what you are doing, C may very well be "better" or more appropriate.
Check out the following articles
http://theunixgeek.blogspot.com/2008/09/c-vs-python-speed.html
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips (especially see Python is not C section)
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/11/the_c_is_efficient_language_fa.php
C is ubiquitous, available for almost any architecture, usually from day-one of a processor's availability. C++ is a close second. If your system can support C++ and you have the necessary expertise, use it in preference to C - it is all that C is, and more, so there are few reasons for not using it.
C++ is a larger language, and there are constructs and techniques supported that may consume resources or behave in unacceptable ways in an embedded system, but that is not a reason not to use the language, but rather how to use it appropriately.
Java and C# (on Micro.Net or WinCE) may be viable alternatives for non-real-time.
You may want to look at the D programming language. It could use some performance tuning, as there are some areas Python can outperform it. I can't really point you to benchmarking comparisons since haven't been keeping a list, but as pointed to by Peter Olsson, Benchmarks & Language Implementations has D Digital Mars.
You will probably also want to look at these lovely questions:
Getting Embedded with D (the programming language)
How would you approach using D in a embedded real-time environment?
I'm not really a systems/embedded programmer, but it seems to me that embedded programs generally need deterministic performance - that immediately rules out many garbage collected languages, because they are not deterministic in general. However, there has been work on deterministic garbage collection (for example, Metronome for Java: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-rtj4/index.html)
The issue is one of constraints - do the languages/runtimes meet the deterministic, memory usage, etc requirements.
C really is your best choice.
There is a difference for writing portable C code and getting too deep into the ghee whiz features of a specific compiler or corner cases of the language (all of which should be avoided). But portability across compilers and compiler versions. The number of employees that will be capable of developing for or maintaining the code. The compilers are going to have an easier time with it and produce better, cleaner, and more reliable code.
C is not going anywhere, with all the new languages being designed to fix the flaws in all the prior languages. C, with all the flaws these new languages are trying to fix, still stands strong.
Here are a couple articles that compare C# to C++ :
http://systematicgaming.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/performance-c-vs-c/
http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2009/01/03/debunking-c-vs-c-performance/
Not exactly what you asked for as it doesn't have a focus on embedded C programming. But it's interesting nonetheless. The first one demonstrates the performance of C++ and the benefits of using "unsafe" code for processor intensive tasks. The second one somewhat debunks the first one and shows that if you write the C# code a little differently then the performance is almost the same.
So I will say that C or C++ can be the clear winner in terms of performance in many cases. But often times the margin is slim. Whether to use C or not is another topic altogether. In my opinion it really should depend on the task at hand. But in embedded systems you often don't have much of a choice.
A couple people have mentioned Lua. People I know who have worked with embedded systems have said Lua is useful, but it's not really its own language per se but more of a library that can be embedded in C. It is targetted towards use in embedded systems and generally you'll want to call Lua code from C. But pure C makes for simpler (though not necessarily easier) maintenance, since everyone knows it.
Depending on the embedded platform, if memory constraints are an issue, you'll most likely need to use a non-garbage collected programming language.
C in this respect is likely the most well-known by the team and the most widely supported with available libraries and tools.
The truth is - not always.
It seems .NET runtime (but any other runtime can be taken as an example) imposes several MBs of runtime overhead. If this is all you have (in RAM), then you are out of luck. JavaME seems to be more compact, but it still all depends on resources you have at your disposal.
C compilers are much faster even on desktop systems, because of how few langage features there are compared to C++, so I'd imagine the difference is non-trivial on embedded systems. This translates to faster iteration times, although OTOH you don't have the conveniences of C++ (such as collections) which may slow you down in the long run.
Related
I'm looking for a higher-level system language, if possible, suitable for formal verification, that compiles to standard C, so that it can be run cross-platform with (relatively) low overhead.
The two most promising such languages I've stumbled during the past few days are:
BitC - While the design goals of this language match my needs (it even supports the functional paradigm), it is in very unstable state, the documentation is out of date, and, generally, it seems like a very long shot for a real-world project.
Lisaac - It supports Design-by-contract, which is very cool and has a relatively low performance overhead. However the website is dead, there hasn't been a new release since '08 and generally it seems the language is dead.
I'd also like to note that it's not meant for a real-time system, so a GC or, generally, non-determinism (in the real-time sense), is not an issue.
The project involves mainly audio processing, though it has to be cross-platform.
I assume someone would point me to the obvious answer - "plain ol' C". While it is truly cross-platform and very effective, the code quantity would probably be greater.
EDIT: I should clarify that I mean cross-platform AND cross-architecture. That is why I consider only languages, compiled to C in the first place, but if you can point me to another example, I'd be grateful :)
I think you may become interested in ATS. It compiles to C (actually it expresses and explains many C idioms and patterns from a formal type-theoretic perspective, it has even been proposed to prepare a book of sorts to show this -- if only we had more time...).
The project involves mainly audio processing, though it has to be cross-platform.
I don't know much about audio processing, I've been mainly doing some computer graphics stuff (mostly the basic things, just to try it out).
Also, I am not sure if ATS works on Windows (never tried that).
(Disclaimer: I've been working with ATS for some time. It is bulky and large language, and sometimes hard to use, but I very much liked the quality of programs I've been able to produce with it, for instance, see TEST subdirectory in GLES2 bindings for some realistic programs)
The following doesn't strictly adhere to the requirements but I'd like to mention it anyway and it is too long for a comment:
Pypy's RPython can be translated to C. Here's a nice talk about it. It's been used to implement Smalltalk, JavaScript, Io, Scheme, Gameboy (with various degree of completeness), but you can write standalone programs in it. It is known mainly for its implementation of Python language that runs on Intel x86 (IA-32) and x86_64 platforms.
The translation process requires a capable C compiler. The toolchain provides means to infer various things about the code (used by the translation process itself) that you might repurpose for formal verification.
If you know both Python and C you could use cython that translates Python-like syntax to C. It is used to write CPython extensions.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
So C obviously has a pretty dominant low level programming stronghold.....but is anything coming out that challenges/wants to replace it?
Python/C#/etc all seem to be aimed at very high level, but when it comes down to nitty-gritty low level stuff C seems to be king and I haven't seen much "try" to replace that?
Is there anything out there, or does learning C for low level stuff seem to be the standard?
If you mean systems level then perhaps D Language.
Whatever happened to Google's GO?
Well to be honest it depends on your need to be "low level"/"system level" and what the system is.
As Neera rightly points out, there is an increasing trend towards managed languages.
So, if you're writing application code, unless you're actually writing the algorithms and optimisations, the idea is that you use the managed code/higher level abstractions. The need to do low level stuff all the time is, on common platforms, vastly reduced. Anywhere you have access to an API that is anywhere near good, you're probably going to have nicer abstraction layers around.
However, if you're implementing on a new architecture, you can either: use assembly to produce a compiler for that platform or write a compiler that outputs machine code from that platform from another platform (cross compilation). Then you need to compile a compiler for that platform.
As you can imagine, C++ is harder to deal with than C in this regard. Even C is actually quite an effort to do well. I've heard people say they like stack based languages like FORTH because for basic work they can get it up and running with very little assembly (compared to a c compiler or full blown cross compilation effort).
Edit (because I like it) Here's a link to the JonesForth git repository. Take a look. Jonesforth is an implementation of forth in i386 assembly complete with code comments walking you through the whole process.
LLVM
C for low level stuff is standard. C works and its known. C is fast because it is low level and makes the programmer do lots of things that Python and C# do for you. You could write another language aimed to replace C, but I don't think it would get you anywhere except a slightly different syntax. (If you wanted to keep the speed of C).
Why is C so fast? Because its shiny assembler. For the things you need to do even faster you use YASM or inline assembler.
There's actually quite a few things that can be used for low level programming. Here's some used in the past with advantages over C.
Pascal variants (used in GEMSOS)
Oberon (used in Oberson System and A2 Bluebottle)
Ada (used in safety critical projects and at least three OS's on limited hardware)
PL/0 (MULTICS)
Modula (used in CVSup and some academic projects for correct system software)
Smalltalk and Haskell were used for prototype OS's or OS replacement layers.
Cyclone, Popcorn, C0, and Typed Assembly Language do better than C while keeping much of it.
Additionally, languages with a runtime can be used if the lowest level parts are implemented by another language. Microsoft's Verve and the JX Operating System are examples. For an old school one, look up the Genera LISP Machine and it's "advantages." You still can't do much of that in modern systems development with C/C++ toolchains. ;)
So, even if C isn't totally replaceable, it's mostly replaceable in most situations without much performance loss. Have fun with these.
The recent trend is moving towards object oriented and managed languages - For example Symbian as an OS is entirely written in C++, Also Microsoft research has come with Singularity OS which is a managed programming model. The idea is that managed languages protect users from easy to make mistakes in C - like resource leaks, pointer corruptions etc by abstracting away these ideas. Also object oriented paradigm helps in writing easy to maintain code. For now C still rule the embedded world, however we can see that changing in coming decade, with more and more embedded world embracing C++ as the language of choice.
I dont thing so
I like to use my old Assembly Rotines, but C is save
I don't think C is low level enough. I would suggest assembly language. As far as I know, it's the lowest level a programmer could go. But you still have to deal with assembler, linker and loaders. There're still many detail things related to the target platform.
There are platform specific low level languages, such as assembly languages and machine codes. With comparing these with C, C is rather high level language.
What do you exactly mean by low level?
C is also used for high level stuff like user interfaces (the whole GNOME Desktop, and its library GTK are written in C).
I'd put C in the low level category because it lets you play with the actual machine (eg: raw memory addresses, just to cite something) adding only a really tiny abstraction layer.
Also other programming languages are offering a clean vision of the underlying machine:
Many are derived from C and are compatible with it (C++, Objective-C). These supply some tools to ease your life by abstracting something. They could replace C, but if you'd use these languages, you'd lose compatibility: ObjectiveC and C++ interfaces cannot be used by C.
Others belong to completely different families, and these, other than the above issue, cannot even use C stuff directly.
Thus, in my opinion, the main reason why C isn't dropped is for commercial reason (it would cost too much to write everything again so that everything is compatible to other languages), pretty much the same reason why COBOL still exists.
There are other reasons, like the fact that C is bare-bone, simple and fast to parse and compile and stuff, but in my opinion these are secondary.
Some big companies who can afford rewriting anything are however trying to kick C off (Apple is extensively using ObjectiveC, for example, while others are using C++).
I think that in future C will keep to exist, since there are no efforts in choosing a specific standard language to be used everywhere in place of C (if you write C code it'll work both with C, with C++ and with ObjectiveC systems, while the opposite is not true) and since there's a too vast code base of C code out there.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm getting into microcontroller programming and have been hearing contrasting views. What language is most used in the industry for microcontroller programming? Is this what you use in your own work? If not, why not?
P.S.: I'm hoping the answer is not assembly language.
In my experience, you absolutely must know C, and assembly language helps too.
Unless you are dealing with very bare-bones microcontrollers (like the RS08 series), C is by far the language of choice. Get to know C, understand functionality like volatile and const. Also understand the architecture - what is efficient, what isn't, what can the CPU do. These will differ wildly from a "desktop" environment. Learn to love stdint.h.
You will encounter C++ (or a restricted subset) as projects scale up.
However, you need to understand the CPU and how to read basic assembly as a debugging tool. You can't become an excellent embedded developer without this skillset.
What 'contrasting' views have you heard? To some extent it will depend on the microcontroller and the application. However C is available for almost all architectures (I hesitate to say all, but probably all that you will ever encounter); so on that point alone, learning C would give you the greatest coverage.
For all architectures, the availability of an assembler and a C compiler are pretty much a given. For 32-bit and most 16-bit architectures C++ will also be available. Notable exceptions I have encountered are Microchip's PIC24/dsPIC parts for which C++ is not supported by Microchip's own GNU based compiler (although 3rd party compilers may do so).
While there are C++ compilers for 8 bit microcontroller's C++ is not ubiquitous on such platforms, and often the compilers are subsets of the full language. For the types (or more specifically the size) of application for which 8-bit is usually employed, C++ may be useful but not to the extent that it is on much larger applications, so C is generally adequate.
There are lot of myths about C++ in embedded systems; while the language is larger than C and has constructs that may compromise the performance or capacity of your system, you only pay for what you use with C++. But of course if what you use is just the C subset, the C would be adequate in any case.
The point about C (and C++) is that it is a systems level language; it will run on your microprocessor with no additional support save a very simple runtime start-up to initialise the processor (and possibly external SDRAM), initialise static data, establish a stack, and in the case of C++ invoke static constructors. This is why along with target specific assembler, it is used to build operating systems and kernels - it needs no operating system or kernel itself to run.
One of the reasons I suggested that it may depend on the microcontroller is that if for example it is an ARM9 with a few Mb of external SDRAM, and at least say 4Mb Flash (also usually external - memory takes up a lot of die space), then you could run a 'heavyweight' OS on it such as Linux, WinCE, or Symbian, or even a large RTOS such as QNX or VxWorks. Then your choice of language (once you got the OS working), would be influenced by the OS, though for real-time applications C and C++ would still dominate, (or often Ada in military, avionics, and some transport applications).
For mid-size applications - a few hundred KBytes of code and data space - C# running on the .NET-Micro platform is possible; However I sat in a presentation of this at the Embedded Systems Show in the UK a few years ago, just after it was when it was launched; when I asked the question "but is it real-time", and was told, "no you need WinCE for that", there was a gasp and a groan from much of the audience, and some stopped wasting their time an left the presentation there and then (including me).
So I am still interested in the 'contrasting' opinions you have heard; because although it is possible to use other languages; the answer to your question:
What language is most used in the
industry for microcontoller
programming?
then the definitive answer is C; for the reasons I have given. For anyone who might choose to contest this assertion here are the statistics (note the different survey method after 2004 explained in the text). However just to add to the collection of alternatives, I once spent two years programming in Forth on embedded systems, and I know of people still using it, but it is a bit of a niche.
I've successfully used both C and C++ but in almost any microcontroller project you will need to be familiar with the assembly language of the target micro. If only for debugging low level hardware issues assembly will be indispensable, even if it is a cursory familiarity.
I think the hardest thing for me when moving from a desktop environment to a micro was that almost everything needs to be allocated statically. You won't often use malloc/new in a micro unless maybe it has external RAM.
I notice that you also tagged your question with FPGA and Verilog, take a look at Altium, they have a C to Hardware compiler that works really well with their integrated environment.
Regarding assembler:
Prefer C/C++ over assembler as much as possible. You'll get better productivity by writing as much as possible in C or C++. That includes being able to run some of your code on a PC, which can help developing the higher-level code (application-layer functions).
On many embedded platforms, it's good to have someone on the project who is comfortable with a little assembler. Mostly to get start-up code and interrupts going nicely, and perhaps functions for interrupt enable/disable. That's not the same as knowing it really thoroughly--just a basic working knowledge will be sufficient.
If you're porting an RTOS (e.g. µC/OS-II) to a new platform, then you'll have to know your assembler more. But hopefully your RTOS supports your platform well already.
If you're pushing up against CPU performance limits, you probably need to know assembler more thoroughly. But hopefully you're not pushing performance limits much, because that can be a drag on a project's viability.
If you're writing for a DSP, you probably need to know the DSP's assembler fairly thoroughly.
Microcontrollers were originally programmed only in assembly language, but various high-level programming languages are now also in common use to target microcontrollers. These languages are either designed specially for the purpose, or versions of general purpose languages such as the C programming language. Compilers for general purpose languages will typically have some restrictions as well as enhancements to better support the unique characteristics of microcontrollers. Some microcontrollers have environments to aid developing certain types of applications. Microcontroller vendors often make tools freely available to make it easier to adopt their hardware.
Many microcontrollers are so quirky that they effectively require their own non-standard dialects of C, such as SDCC for the 8051, which prevent using standard tools (such as code libraries or static analysis tools) even for code unrelated to hardware features. Interpreters are often used to hide such low level quirks.
Interpreter firmware is also available for some microcontrollers. For example, BASIC on the early microcontrollers Intel 8052[4]; BASIC and FORTH on the Zilog Z8[5] as well as some modern devices. Typically these interpreters support interactive programming.
Simulators are available for some microcontrollers, such as in Microchip's MPLAB environment. These allow a developer to analyze what the behavior of the microcontroller and their program should be if they were using the actual part. A simulator will show the internal processor state and also that of the outputs, as well as allowing input signals to be generated. While on the one hand most simulators will be limited from being unable to simulate much other hardware in a system, they can exercise conditions that may otherwise be hard to reproduce at will in the physical implementation, and can be the quickest way to debug and analyze problems.
You need to know assembly language programming.You need to have good knowledge in C and also C++ too.so work hard on thse things to get better expertize on micro controller programming.
And don't forget about VHDL.
For microcontrollers assembler comes before C. Before the ARMs started pushing into this market the compilers were horrible and the memory and ROM really tiny. There are not enough resources or commonality to port your code so writing in C for portability makes no sense.
Some microcontroller's assembler is less than desirable, and ARM is taking over that market. For less money, less power, and less footprint you can have a 32-bit processor with more resources. It just makes sense. Much if your code will still not port, but you can probably get by with C.
Bottom line, assembler and C. If they advertise BASIC or Java or something like that, mark that company on your blacklist and move on. Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it.
First Assembly. After C.
I think that who knows Assembly and C are better than who knows only C.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm starting a job search, ideally ending up at a C shop. So far, I'm coming up empty in my local ads, and am starting to think I need to broaden my search, targeting specific types of businesses.
So, what type of places typically use this language?
C is typically used for fairly low-level development. You'll see it used in embedded systems, frequently, which is often listed as a computer engineering position (rather than computer science, or software engineering.) C is also used frequently for device drivers and 'generic' low-level code like math utility code for larger projects.
Generally the sorts of jobs that -need- C are taken by developers who've been using it forever, and have likely been in that position a long time.
Just keep looking! C is a rarity in terms of seeing a job just listed as "C Developer" as you've seen - so obviously they'll just be hard to find.
But I'd just wonder why you're exclusively looking for a C job as opposed to a language like C++ or Objective C :)
Edit:
Just a little note also, not to mislead you with the answer; C is still used for a lot of different stuff. Browsers, instant messengers, server daemons, the network code for even some code written on other languages even. The problem is this is just inefficient in terms the amount of time spent doing the work when you easily write it in Python, on .NET, or any number of other technologies. As such, it just isn't common, but the work can exist.
I work primarily as a C (and Perl) developer, because the application is mature, with a fairly long history (i.e. originally developed in the early 90s). The application suite originally was developed for Unix based graphical workstations. My previous job was a similar situation, a mature distributed application that was developed on multiple Unix platforms, originally in the early 1990s, and due to the source code size and maturity, it would be difficult to justify simply throwing that code base away to move to a new development language or even migrating to C++.
I would imagine there are still a number of larger in-house (used for internal purposes, not sold as a product) applications written in C that are still being maintained. Not entirely unlike the massive COBOL applications that large companies (insurance, finance, banking) that are also still being maintained.
For new development in C, others have already mentioned the embedded systems market, where the development is often for software put into ROM or EEPROM / flash memory where it is referred to as firmware, for microcontrollers (Microchip PIC, Atmel AVR, 80C51, 68HC11, etc.), where object code size, RAM usage, and performance matters so the usage of a programming language with fewer high-level or generic abstractions or assumptions is desirable.
One critical thing about good to great C programmers, is that they are expected if not required to know more about data structures and algorithms. Priority Queues, Binary Trees, MergeSort, QuickSort, Knuth-Morris-Pratt, and Karp-Rabin should be at least vaguely familiar. This is because the C language lacks the STL, Boost, CPAN, and other standard libraries available in other languages. This is at least partly because most implementations are type-specific (due to lack of templates or dynamic typing or similar mechanism) to have generic enough routines to be useful in practise.
Knowing more than one programming language is not a bad thing, even if you don't feel comfortable enough to claim to be comptent enough to program in the additional langages professional. A "modern" scripting or "trendy" web development language might be a good match. Perl, Python, and Ruby are good potential candidates.
For programming experience, functional languages like LISP, Scheme, Prolog*, ML, Objective Caml, Haskell, and Scala are good candidates for making you "think different." Admittedly Prolog is actually a declarative logic programming language, but it is still programming experience expanding.
To add on to Anthony's excellent answer, C is still used extensively in the development of operating systems and firmware, so you may want to try looking in that direction as well.
Good luck in your search for a job.
Things that must run close to the metal, and be fast.
So in addition to what Anthony wrote -- networking protocols, storage device drivers, file systems, the core of operating systems, are still big on C.
Because the focus of interest has commonly moved to applied and web development where you can't do much with C.
Either extend your search geography to other cities/countries or follow the industry trend and learn something new.
Most C programming jobs are in "embedded systems" ... things like televisions, cars, phones, alarms, clocks, toys. Such applications are often memory-constrained by cost reasons, so higher-level languages (eg, Python) are not an option there.
At a time when C and C++ were the predominant coding environments, it was said that 90% of the C programming jobs were for embedded work. Stuff that isn't advertised as software, and for which there are rarely any famous names or faces associated. This is even more the case today.
Linux is completely in C. So any company that contributes to Linux is likely to employ C coders. I worked for an industrial automation company that developed in C. Though most automation shops run PLCs and ladder logic.
iPhone development shops online. Try craigslist as well.
Objective-C is a slim superset of C, so your C skills translate nicely.
Good luck!
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