Once upon a time, a team of guys sat down and wrote an application in C, running on VMS on a VAX. It was a rather important undertaking and runs a reasonably important back-end operation at LargeCo. This whole shebang works so well that twenty-five years later it's still chugging along and doing it's thing.
Time passes and people retire and it so happens that the Last Man Standing has turned over the keys to a new generation who - we might imagine - are less than thrilled to find themselves caretakers of a system old enough to be their younger brother. Yet, as underwhelmed as they are by the idea of dealing with Ultra Legacy Systems, they can't justify the cost of replacing the venerable application.
LMS discovered that I habla unix and put this question to me. And since I habla unix but don't speak the C I shall summarize and put it to you. Long Story Short:
LMS wants to port LegacyApp, written in C. from VMS to unix. Resources? Any books he can read? People he can talk to?
The first question I'd need to ask is why, and I'd be leading the conversation in the direction of "Do you really need to port it off of VMS". There are a number of things worth mentioning about VMS:
-> VMS is still actively developed and maintained by HP. They just release V8.4 for Field Test last week (see http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvmsft/).
-> VMS is available on new hardware; specifically HP's Integrity servers based on the Itanium processor.
-> VMS is also available on virtual platforms via the Charon Emulation products.
-> Popular estimates are that there are about 300,000 VMS systems still in active use today. LMS may be the last man at LargeCo, but he's far from the last man standing worldwide.
-> Lots of information out there, see openvms.org for example, to see lots of current information on VMS, all from current users.
OK - you still want to port off of VMS. How do you do it? Well, it depends on lots of stuff.
-> As others have said, how standard is the code? Chances are, not very. The more VMS-isms, the more difficult the job. 'nuff said.
-> What is the database? If it's Oracle, probably not too tough to move to Oracle on some other platform. If it's some sort of custom DB based on RMS index files, then you've got more work to do, you'll need to re-create that pseudo DB, or, understand it enough to replace it with some relational DB.
-> Besides C, what else is used to create the application? What's on the front end? DECforms? FMS? Is there a transaction engine, e.g. ACMS? RTR? These things will have a huge impact on the feasibility and effort required to port to UNIX.
-> What other products are involved? Are there any 3rd party libraries being used? Are there 3rd party products in use that are critical to the application or functionality?
-> Is this system clustered? If so why? You'll need to meet those same goals with the UNIX box.
-> There are companies out there that will help you do it, and claim to have tools to make it easier, but my experience is that these companies tend to be selling you more services than products (i.e. you need to hire them to use the tools. It'll be expensive).
The book UNIX for OpenVMS Users will give the VMS novice some help in understanding VMS, but, as the title says, the book is really intended for the opposite purpose.
Everything written on VMS uses lots of VMS specific stuff it was just so convenient.
There are a few companies that sell compatibility libs to make the port easier - they wont be cheap though, VMS tended to be used where reliability mattered more than cost.
The other option is to run openVMS on some modern hardware, possibly in a VM.
I am sure Brian has made his decision by now, but for my sins of working for many years in DEC OpenVMS language support (yes, some people had this dubious honour) the real question I would have asked a customer such as Brian is: is it a real-time application or not? If it is the former, then it would be heavily dependent on many VMS system services which would rule out a 'port' and indicate a re-write. If it were the latter then the frequency of VMS system services should (possibly) be limited and make a port viable.
The acid test for me, would be to SEARCH *.c "SYS$", "LIB$" i.e. to search all of the C source files for "SYS$" and "LIB$" tags which prefix VMS system services. If the count for these are in the 10s then a port is probably likely, between 10 and 100 makes it possibly likely, but over a 100 makes a successful port highly unlikely.
Hope this helps
You have several choices.
Get the OpenVMS source, and continue to maintain Open VMS as if it were a Linux distribution. Some folks don't mind keeping up with Linux distributions and OpenVMS distributions. It can be done.
Try to recompile the VMS C into Linux. This can be trivial if the C used only standard libraries. This can be very, very difficult if the C used a lot of VMS libraries.
Once you have facts at your fingertips, you can reevaluate this course of action. Since you didn't list a bunch of VMS library methods this program uses, it's impossible to tell how entangled it is with the OS.
This may be trivial or impossible. It's difficult to tell without analysis of the source.
Write bridge libraries from VMS to Linux. If your program only does a few VMS things, this isn't very difficult. If your program does extensive VMS things, this is craziness.
The bridge -- in the long run -- is a terrible idea. Managers love it, however.
An alternative is to replace the VMS library calls with proper, portable Linux calls rather than write bridges. This is better in the long run, because it excises the non-portable features of the program.
Rewrite it from scratch in Python. That is usually simpler than trying to port the C code. It will be shorter, cleaner, simpler, and portable.
If you're willing to keep running VMS in a VM, you can look into CHARON-VAX ( http://www.charon-vax.com/ ). As previously mentioned, the ease of porting really depends a lot on how much of the VMS extensions were used; searching the source code for $ characters embedded in strings (usually with a 3-character leading substring, such as lib$gettime or dsc$descriptor or sys$foobar etc) will give you at least a basic idea of what VMS system functions are called and how likely they are to be portable, if the name is reasonably obvious.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Why port it or migrate the app if you don't have to? Why not run it on a current install of OpenVMS running on an HP Itanium server; that is assuming you wish to upgrade the hardware, which may not even be necessary if your VAX hardware is still running strong.
To learn C, you might as well drag it from the horse's mouth: "The C Programming Language" by its inventors, Kernighan and Ritchie.
I can recommend "The UNIX programming environment" by (again) Brian Kernighan; a more authoritative source you'll hardly find, and it teaches you both Unix/C idioms and a bit of C programming at the same time.
For more depth and detail on C, I heartily enjoyed a book by Peter van der Linden: "Expert C Programming - Deep C Secrets".
You'll also want to wrestle LMS for a library documentation of VMS-specific C functions with (of course) special emphasis on those actually used in the app. That's where your porting effort will be.
The job could be easy or difficult, depending on how much machine-specific cleverness and bit-twiddling is done, and how many VMS-specific system calls are used. It would be very good if word size was equal (in other words, if your VMS box has a word size of 32 bits, don't run the code on a 64 bit version of Unix!)
Brian, I'm not sure if LMS specified/cared to port C-code or the WHOLE process. As too often people think of languages out of scope of systems.
If there're was a process built on VMS, most likely it used at least scheduling/batch facilities, which are often scripted in DCL (rather simple and clear language, unlike shell or perl scripting).
So the cost of porting the whole process may be higher than originally perceived by your LMS. Add here the reliability aspect, given your crunches with C, which is nothing impossible, of course, with enthusiasm and determination.
If you want simply give the C-code a try, as previously posted, search it for the "$" hits. Or just cc it with all headers present, the basics of compile-link command should be enough.
Alternatively, this looks like a consultant's call, as indeed such jobs were abundant at the "exodus" time. All said VMS remains quite a robust platform (24x7 is a norm!), unless the harware dies, then there're still tons of "exodus" spares. GOOD LUCK!
About a year and a half later, maybe you've already figured out what to do. My organization has recently decided to stick with OpenVMS instead of switching to Linux even though the old guard recently left. We just couldn't argue with what we felt was a very stable and reliable system. We are currently switching from Alpha servers to Integrity servers for end of life reasons. HP has been very helpful with our transition.
For that matter, there may be Linux vendors out there who can help with the transition. Ask your new hardware vendor if they have any recommendations.
Depending on what languages you already know, C is not that hard to learn. I taught myself C in the course of learning C++ after finally prying myself loose from Pascal.
(VAX Pascal, plus Rdb/VMS, plus DCL formed a combination that was hard to beat.)
If the software is typical C, you'll spend more time learning the library functions than learning the language.
It's pretty lightweight stuff, but I went through the online tutorials for C++ that Microsoft makes available in conjunction with the express edition of Visual Studio for C++.
Here's the beginner's tutorial:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/beginner/cc305129.aspx
It's probably worth making the effort to ask why LMS wants to port the application to Unix. The answer may seem obvious, but properly exploring the reasons has its benefits. I would assume:
OpenVMS is an "ultra legacy platform", and for that reason alone is something that is not worth running an application on anymore;
It's tough to find anyone who is willing to maintain an application that runs on OpenVMS these days;
The hardware on-which OpenVMS runs is threatening to become moribund.
We have a similar challenge, but in our case the application in question not only runs on OpenVMS but is also written in COBOL. I would have to say that your situation is rosy in comparison given that your application is written in a cross-platform language.
In any case, I think if you're about to make a big decision like moving from OpenVMS to Unix it would be prudent to do a little due diligence. In your case, try to assess just how portable the code is--only then will you know what the scale of the effort is (worst case could quite easily be a multiple of best case). In C, code portability is mostly a function of the dependencies--are they "standard" or are they VMS-specific?
Our enquiries revealed that HP would be supporting OpenVMS on Itanium until at least 2022. There isn't necessarily a need to rush to another platform--perhaps you could keep things on OpenVMS whilst embarking on an effort to prepare the application for porting (make it less dependent on OpenVMS specifics).
VMS has a surprisingly healthy community and if it's the lack of Unix that's the issue, then maybe GNV could help bridge the gap?
Well u have a few options. if this code needs to be ported rather quickly, i would write a bridge library to emulate the vms libs. whener you get it back up and running on a *nix, then go through replacing the vms library calls with native/portable calls for *nix.
Also if there is a lot of optimizations in the code ie inline assembly and bit twiddling. then you will have to rewrite thi code, which will take an understanding of the VAX arch. also. be sure to check word size differences and endian differences
Related
I have been taking online courses on Operating systems, and I heard them say, that XV6 operating system can be used learn implementation of operating systems, thats all.But after I searched on the internet there aren't enough resources, which would get me started with it.
My question is, why should I use it,and how will it help me in understanding operating system.
(Please be gentle with information you throw at me, I am a newbie :( )
Any effort is appreciated
There are only 2 possibilities:
too complex to be useful for teaching
too simple to be useful for teaching
Things like fancy features/enhanced functionality, mitigating security issues, dealing with hardware bugs/errata, performance, scalability and supporting a very wide range of different hardware all increase the complexity of the code; and if you look at a real commercial OS (e.g. Linux maybe) that has to care about all of these things it's hard to learn about one thing (e.g. memory management) without all the complexity getting in the way and making it significantly harder to learn.
If you have a simple OS that does none of those things (no fancy features, no mitigation of security issues, ...) then it's much much easier to learn basic principles from it; but it also becomes impossible to use it to learn about fancy features, mitigating security issues, dealing with hardware bugs/errata, ...
The solution is to start with a simple OS (e.g. XV6) to learn the basics, then switch to a real OS later to learn everything else.
However; most OS courses at Universities are not intended to teach you about writing an OS. Instead they're intended to give you basic information about operating systems so that you can use that knowledge when writing application programs for existing operating systems. For that reason (and because there's time constraints) they only do the first part (with a simple OS like XV6) and then the course finishes.
1.XV6 is used for teaching in many universities.
2.It's also a tool OS for many program
This may sound noobish, especially as I'm ( as you may have guessed ) trying to write an Operating System. At the moment I'm stuck on trying to make a file system.
What I want is a similar file system as Linux Ubuntu which is EXT4 ( at least mine is ). I want to try and also either write it in C.
Any idea's on how I can go about this? And/or any tutorials that you might have found that may help me ( I have tried searching with no luck ) :L
Thanks in advance!
Jamie.
Really smart and experienced people who have studied this problem extensively have made bugs that ate users' data. The difference between a bug in the computation layer (e.g. a kernel crash) and a bug in the storage layer is that silently eating users' data is very bad - much worse than giving wrong answers in spreadsheets (excel is buggy yet popular) or intermittently sigfaulting while preserving data on disk (this is easily mitigated by frequent autosave).
Start by studying simpler designs, like the minix filesystems from the old operating systems book [1] (the same one Linus Torvalds started with, twenty years ago).
Like others said, ext2 without journaling, extents or ACLs is a better starting point than ext4. The source code for it is in the Linux kernel and in the e2fsprogs userspace tools package[2]. The format is well documented.
As for tutorials, consider who makes them and why they spend effort on this task. Tutorials are generally made by stakeholders in platforms to bring in new people to develop using that platform, to use the network effect to grow the platform and profit from being already-established actors in a larger ecosystem.
Do you see a business model in growing the number of people who implement their own incompatible buggy[3] file systems? Only if you sell software engineering degrees. So Microsoft only writes tutorials on how to use NTFS, not on how to implement it. Same for Sun and ZFS, Red Hat and Google with EXT2/3/4, SGI with XFS, IBM with JFS, Oracle with BTRFS, etc.
If you want education instead of training, you need to read books and study smart peoples' code they use in production, not look for tutorials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Systems:_Design_and_Implementation
http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/
How much use, in how many different use pattern with it see? Consider bugs discovered in production FSs after years of use on millions of computers. It is unlikely your code will be less buggy, even if you're as smart as Matthew Dillon.
Try looking at an existing implementation, like the one in Linux.
This is not meant to be inflammatory or anything like that, but I am in the midst of learning C, and (think) I have a good handle on most of the basics. I've done all of the various book exercises: primes generators, Fibonacci generators, string manipulation, yadda yadda, but none of this is cool.
What is the "bridge" between command line programs and something -cool-? I've heard of various games being written in C, but how?
Forgive my exasperation, but it feels like I've been learning lots but can still only do relatively little. Thanks for any insight on what to do with C.
Relevant information: OS X leopard, PHP and web development experience (which is so great because projects are immediately in a context where you recognize how they can be powerful)
C is the concrete and the steel of modern tech
There was a time when almost everything was written in C, or in something much worse.
These days, many of the advanced languages and systems are actually implemented in C or C++, and then those things implement more systems. It is standing on the shoulders of giants, as the expression goes. Almost every OS kernel, browser, and heavy-duty-web-server is written in C/C++.
So sure, you don't see the steel in the high rise, you see the beautiful interior furnishings and the sleek glass windows. You don't want a steel or concrete desk, and if you did, it would be too expensive to build for you.
Back to your GUI question: your first C graphics program should probably use the original X Window System directly. Don't spend too much time there, but then move on to one of the more advanced Widget toolkits such as GTK+ or (the C++) Qt. Be sure to investigate your OS X system, as it has one of the most advanced of them all.
I try love to write things in Ruby these days, but I happen to know there are over 100,000 200,000 lines of C code implementing that cool Ruby language system. :-)
Summary
Ok, this post got really big, so here's a quick summary before you read it: to program GUIs, there are a number of good C/C++ libraries (for example, QT). What most people do, on Windows systems at least, is to use a .NET language (like C#) when they want GUIs, and C/C++ when they want more control/speed. It's also very common to use both in combination, i.e. make a GUI in C# and speed-critical parts in C.
I still encourage you to read the longer answer, it contains a lot more information on your options.
Longer answer
I'll start with the big question, then answer (as best I can) your specific question about creating a GUI. I think you're kind of suffering from the fact that C is used to teach programming, and it's much easier to do so only using command line programs (after all, they're much simpler to write). This doesn't mean that C can't do all of the stuff you want, like GUIs specifically. It does. I don't think there's any type of software that hasn't been done in C, usually before it was done in other languages.
All right, some answers:
Is C Useful?
C, and its very close relative C++, are responsible for a huge portion of the world's code. I don't know if more code is written in C than any other language, but I'm guessing it's not far off.
Most of the really important programs you use are actually written in C/C++. Just for one example, Windows.
Where is C used today?
C/C++ are still used a lot. They're especially useful for developing low-level stuff (i.e. stuff like Operating Systems, which need a lot of speed, a lot of ability to control exactly what your code does, etc.).
But don't think it's all low level for C programmers. Even today, with many other languages available (which are arguably much better, and certainly much easier to program), C is still used to create practically everything. GUI applications, which you specifically asked about, are very often made with C, even though nowadays, lots of people are switching to other languages. Note I say switching: C used to be the standard language for writing, well, everything, really.
How do I develop GUIs with C
Alright, you specifically wanted to know how to create a GUI with C (I'm hoping C++ is ok too).
First of all, it depends on a number of factors:
What Operating System are you writing for? (Windows, Mac, and Linux are the most common).
Do you want the GUI to work on other systems as well?
The most common case is writing software to work on Windows. In that case, the "natural" solution is to write things that work with the Win32 API. That's basically the library that "comes" with Windows, letting you do any GUI work you want to do.
The big problem with this is, it's kinda hard. As in, a lot hard. This is the reason most people don't do that kind of work anymore.
So what are your other options?
The most natural is going with what's called a .NET language. Those are a bunch of languages, together with libraries, that Microsoft created. They're probably the easiest way to get a GUI on Windows. The problem is, you can't really use them from C (since it's not a .NET language).
Assuming you want to stay in C/C++ land, you can use some kind of library which makes working with the Windows API easier (since it hides all the ugly details):
One of the most common is what's called MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), which are a bunch of C++ classes which make it "easier" to create Windows stuff. Unfortunately, this library is very old, and is really not that easy to use.
The other way to go if you want to program in C++ is to use some kind of third-party library. This is a library that someone other than Microsoft created, which makes it easier to create a GUI.
Another option is to create only the GUI part of your software in a .NET language, and use C/C++ for the other parts (or use the .NET language to do almost everything, and use C/C++ only when you really need it, for example when you need things to go really fast). This is a very popular option.
The advantage of a third party library is that, if you pick the right one, you can use the same code to create a GUI for all the Operating Systems at the same time.
I think the most famous of these libraries is QT, and also WxWidgets, but there are a bunch of other ones. I would personally pick QT since it seems to get the most fame, but I haven't worked with either.
Every major operating system has all of its low-level libraries implemented in C. Mac OS X is a Unix-like system under the hood, which is a wonderful world if you're a C programmer.
Check out The Art of Unix Programming for some great ideas.
As for GUI stuff, you'll probably want to use X11. There is plenty of good documentation out there -- most Unix programming stuff and most deep system-level stuff just assumes you're working in C, since that's what everybody uses for it.
Well, that depends. If you want to build desktop applications, a multiplatform GUI library whose main language is C is GTK+:
http://www.gtk.org/
For games, check out SDL:
http://www.libsdl.org/
Which provides you with thinks like direct input from keyboard, 2D graphics, some audio and even threads and stuff like that. It can also open an OpenGL context if you want to get into the 3D world (however it's hard to do it in raw OpenGl). Did I mention that SDL is multiplatform?
However the real strength of C is in systems programming. For desktop applications/games maybe you are best suited with C++. Now that you have command of C, learning the basic C++ should be easy ;).
Cool stuff do with C?
Operating Systems, device drivers, and python modules for starters.
Games typically will use C++ if they're C-Based, in my experience / what I've seen.
There are many libraries for C under Unix, such as X lib, which accesses X11.
If you wanted to get into robotics you may find C to be very useful, as you will have to write low-level code with very small memory footprints, so even C++ may not be the best choice.
C and C++ are very good at writing small, fast code, but OOP is not always the best choice, so at times you will find that C is a better choice, for example if you are writing a compiler or OS.
Sure there are some impressive programs made in C !
GNOME for example, arguably the most used desktop environment used in modern unix systems is written in C (the major parts at least) and is mostly based on GTK+ gui toolkit, itself done in C.
For game, OpenGL is a C api and is the standard for 3D graphic programming in multi-platform development (not uniquely microsoft platform), and Quake 3, which the engine, Id Tech 3, is available in GPL, is also writen in C. There also is many 2D games written using SDL library.
SDL is a good library for graphics and sound, and I've seen some cool stuff done with it. If you do it in C, it'll take longer to make, but from a performance point of view, it'll be much better.
If your idea of cool is GUI apps and you want to write native GUI apps on the Mac, you'll want to look at
Carbon. This is the official C API into the Mac GUI and OS. They keep threatening to kill it, but it survives.
Personally I think GUI apps are a very narrow definition of cool. What I think is cool is implementing parallelized math algorithms using opencl.
GTK-server is REALLY easy to get started with, in C or any other language. Just click that link.
For a "cool" application that goes beyond simple GUI's, check out the OpenCV computer vision library. It provides fast real-time image processing and face recognition.
Now you can access a webcam and start writing real-time computer vision games. For applications like these that are processor intensive, C is the ideal choice.
Last I checked more Open Source projects are started in C than in any other language.
The fact that C is used by so many large and successful projects doesn't particularly make it "good". The reason C is so commonly used is because of a few factors, it's been around a long time, it's fast, it lets you access both low level and high level interfaces as needed, and it's better than the other old languages (FORTRAN etc). The "cool" thing about C is that you can make it do absolutely anything: inject itself into the kernel and add some new features or bug fixes that you couldn't convince Microsoft to do, etc.
Yes, C can be and is easily used for things beyond the command line, but it's extremely dangerous due to pointers... Not to mention development in other more modern languages is faster (and safer) by magnitudes. I never use C unless it's the last resort, ie: need to implement something low level or needs that extra performance.
By the way, when I say C, I really mean C++. I'd never choose C over C++ unless I was forced to.
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