Hi I'm currently learning Python since the syntax feels so succinct and the idioms match well with my mental model.
However I'm also interested in learning about OS internals and reverse engineering software, which ultimately means knowing C in a rather thorough capacity.
When originally picking a language I did lots of reading and comparisons, and it seems that a number thrown out a lot is that to write short idiomatic statements in Python would require the equivalent of a few hundred lines of C (I'd guess code for memory management, writing the code for dictionaries,lists etc) that we take for granted as built into the Python language.
1) With an average C programmer, is that 100-200 lines of code per Python idiom anywhere near accurate?
Because C doesn't come built-in with Python-like constructs such as dictionaries/lists(with all their nice methods etc):
2) Do C programmers tend to build these constructs from scratch and then re-use them between projects to greatly reduce the actual amount of hand coding for their projects?
I assume re-using libraries like boost:: stuff also again, reduces some of the boilerplate hand coding also...
3) But does using popular libraries and re-using common code one has written before in C for basic constructs/etc, how much does that revise the lines of code written in C compared to the code in Python of a enthusiast sized code base?
I know specific numbers aren't possible, but is it possible with libraries, code reuse etc, to have a development time in C close to that of Python without being a Linus Torvalds style coding machine?
Thanks!
but is it possible with libraries, code reuse etc, to have a development time in C close to that of Python
No.
You've missed the most important point.
Python's interactive. It's not edit-compile-link-execute-break-debug. It's edit-debug.
Boost is C++, not C (emphatically not C -- virtually all of it makes heavy use of templates and such that aren't part of C).
Yes, C programmers tend to build up personal libraries of code for all sorts of "stuff" -- data structures, algorithms, user interfaces, and so on. There are also a fair number of other libraries for everything from basic string manipulation to database connectivity, user interfaces, basic algorithms and data structures, etc.
Comparing productivity between the two can be difficult though -- even if something can be done in one line of code either way, there's a greater chance that the C programmer will end up doing extra work to find and learn to use that particular library. OTOH, if he has used it before, the two might be directly competitive of (in a few cases) C might be more productive.
I'd guess Python ends up more productive more often, but trying to guess how much so is difficult (and lines of code usually won't be a good indication either).
As I did serious c programming I read a book that claimed libraries are worth to write. (Especially in C which considered a low level language)
Libraries are build for reuse.
If you use libraries you write one line like detectFace( faceDesriptor ) or renderPDF( document) is doesn't matter whether an idiom in another language is more concise or not.
Lines of code isn't a proper metric if it is about what would more efficient.
It depends.
Try to write an interrupt handler in python. Someone could probably make it work but it's going to be a dancing bear, the dancing is not good but it is surprising that a bear can do it. Want to write an OS or do some embedded programming you're not going to be able to use python. It's telling that the main python implementation is written in C.
That being said I'm amazed at some of the low-level stuff that you can do with python. The high-level stuff is almost a given if you're measuring lines of code. Python is just a higher-level language.
They are both very useful tools, just for different types of projects. Knowing both would be very useful, particularly when you need to interface to some new functionality in python that doesn't yet have a python binding.
For the types of projects most developers work on python is going to be more consice and quicker to write and debug. You may be able to make a library of reusable C code, but a good python programmer will be doing the same thing with their python code, at a higher level.
I think Python is more productive for small projects (up to a few thousand lines of code).
On the other hand, C is better suited for large projects (even though IMHO there are better languages for that, such as Ada): static type-checking allows to find many errors at compile time that are much more difficult to detect at run-time, especially in a large program.
In a larger C project, the lack of lists and other powerful data structures that are found in Python can be compensated by implementing or using custom libraries. I agree with user stacker that by using well-designed libraries your C code can be pretty concise.
Depends greatly on the task and the size of the project. For many small interesting tasks, I would not be surprised by 100:1 smaller Python code simply because the standard libraries are extremely good. If you find, buy, or build C/C++ libraries that do what you want, I imagine the ratio would be much more like 3:1 on big projects.
However, finding, buying, and building C/C++ libraries does take time and effort, so I believe in the vast majority of cases, Python is going to be much faster to develop in.
Related
I want to extend python and numpy by writing some modules in C or C++, using BLAS and LAPACK. I also want to be able to distribute the code as standalone C/C++ libraries. I would like this libraries to use both single and double precision float. Some examples of functions I will write are conjugate gradient for solving linear systems or accelerated first order methods. Some functions will need to call a Python function from the C/C++ code.
After playing a little with the Python/C API and the Numpy/C API, I discovered that many people advocate the use of Cython instead (see for example this question or this one). I am not an expert about Cython, but it seems that for some cases, you still need to use the Numpy/C API and know how it works. Given the fact that I already have (some little) knowledge about the Python/C API and none about Cython, I was wondering if it makes sense to keep on using the Python/C API, and if using this API has some advantages over Cython. In the future, I will certainly develop some stuff not involving numerical computing, so this question is not only about numpy. One of the thing I like about the Python/C API is the fact that I learn some stuff about how the Python interpreter is working.
Thanks.
The current "top answer" sounds a bit too much like FUD in my ears. For one, it is not immediately obvious that the Average Developer would write faster code in C than what NumPy+Cython gives you anyway. Quite the contrary, the time it takes to even get the necessary C code to work correctly in a Python environment is usually much better invested in writing a quick prototype in Cython, benchmarking it, optimising it, rewriting it in a faster way, benchmarking it again, and then deciding if there is anything in it that truly requires the 5-10% more performance that you may or may not get from rewriting 2% of the code in hand-tuned C and calling it from your Cython code.
I'm writing a library in Cython that currently has about 18K lines of Cython code, which translate to almost 200K lines of C code. I once managed to get a speed-up of almost 25% for a couple of very important internal base level functions, by injecting some 20 lines of hand-tuned C code in the right places. It took me a couple of hours to rewrite and optimise this tiny part. That's truly nothing compared to the huge amount of time I saved by not writing (and having to maintain) the library in plain C in the first place.
Even if you know C a lot better than Cython, if you know Python and C, you will learn Cython so quickly that it's worth the investment in any case, especially when you are into numerics. 80-95% of the code you write will benefit so much from being written in a high-level language, that you can safely lay back and invest half of the time you saved into making your code just as fast as if you had written it in a low-level language right away.
That being said, your comment that you want "to be able to distribute the code as standalone C/C++ libraries" is a valid reason to stick to plain C/C++. Cython always depends on CPython, which is quite a dependency. However, using plain C/C++ (except for the Python interface) will not allow you to take advantage of NumPy either, as that also depends on CPython. So, as usual when writing something in C, you will have to do a lot of ground work before you get to the actual functionality. You should seriously think about this twice before you start this work.
First, there is one point in your question I don't get:
[...] also want to be able to distribute the code as standalone C/C++ libraries. [...] Some functions will need to call a Python function from the C/C++ code.
How is this supposed to work?
Next, as to your actual question, there are certainly advantages of using the Python/C API directly:
Most likely, you are more familar with writing C code than writing Cython code.
Writing your code in C gives you maximum control. To get the same performance from Cython code as from equivalent C code, you'll have to be very careful. You'll not only need to make sure to declare the types of all variables, you'll also have to set some flags adequately -- just one example is bounds checking. You will need intimate knowledge how Cython is working to get the best performance.
Cython code depends on Python. It does not seem to be a good idea to write code that should also be distributed as standalone C library in Cython
The main disadvantage of the Python/C API is that it can be very slow if it's used in an inner loop. I'm seeing that calling a Python function takes a 80-160x hit over calling an equivalent C++ function.
If that doesn't bother your code then you benefit from being able to write some chunks of code in Python, have access to Python libraries, support callbacks written directly in Python. That also means that you can make some changes without recompiling, making prototyping easier.
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 10 years ago.
Someone told me once, that programmers tend to learn one scripting language properly and ignore or dislike other scripting languages. Do you have similar experiences?
I'm using Python as my choice for scripting for few years, however, I'm sure that there are many existing and emerging languages that could impress the Pythonistas. Can you recommend scripting languages that would be interesting and useful to learn besides of Python?
Look, Python pretty much has all you need (in my opinion) for application programming. You can write anything from a protocol stack to YouTube, from media players to 3D games and graphics and you get excellent performance.
It occupies the same niche as some of these other mentioned languages:
C, you have access to almost all of the useful C/C++ libraries. The only reason I would pick to write something in C over Python is because I needed the performance gain. Even then, I would probably prototype it in Python first; it's much easier to revise your design when your application is written in Python.
Ruby, there is no good reason to ever use Ruby instead of Python.
Perl, it's great for some particular kinds of tasks, but if you're a fan of consistent, readable and sane programming styles you will hate looking at about 95% of existing Perl code. I don't know if this is because the people who program in Perl tend to be (in my experience) sys admins first and programmers second, or because Perl has a design philosophy that allows for multiple distinct ways to achieve the same effect.
Given that, I would say that if you are going to learn another language, make sure it gives you the ability to do something new. There are two scripting languages that I would recommend for you to learn:
Bash, what a joy it is to manipulate your filesystem with a combination of for loops and pipes. Bash programming doesn't give you more than what you can already do with Python, but if you are a *nix user you will experience great gains in your daily productivity.
Javascript, being able to write browser-based applications is a useful skill and almost definitely the way most applications will be done in the future. The Javascript/browser environment is set to gain a whole host of capabilities in the coming few years, from audio manipulation to OpenGL graphics, and some very fast engines are either in the works or already available (like V8, which powers the Chrome browser and compiles Javascript to native byte code.) Have you seen Quake2 ported to WebGL?
My answer basically boils down to this: first, learn languages that are useful.
Ruby - what it enables and does with blocks is really interesting, and quite foreign to python based programming
Erlang - the functional language has a lot of interesting examples and it will definitely make your head work differently afterwards (in a good way)
Javascript - yes, I'm serious. ALthough there's a fair number of grips to be had with this prototype language, it does some really interesting things with that prototyping and just slightly differently than Ruby and/or Python. And a ton of folks are pouring big money into making Javascript a outstandingly fast scripting language.
I would recommend learning Haskell and a dialect of Lisp such as Scheme or Common Lisp, if you master either of those you'll gain insight into how things are accomplished with the functional paradigm and it'll help out your Python as well.
Here are some languages categorized by paradigms I'd learn:
Imperative/Procedural languages:
C
Functional paradigm languages:
Haskell
Common Lisp/Scheme
Similar object oriented languages:
Ruby
ECMAScript
Other:
Perl
I would advise you to stay away from PHP unless you really need the work. You would probably want to run back to Python.
Scripting languages are so similar that the marginal benefit of moving from one scripting language to another is usually low. So it's unsurprising that people wouldn't bother to learn more than one. Nevertheless, in my career I have passed through times when my main scripting language (in roughly chronological order) was
Awk
Tcl
Icon
Ksh
Lua
I also used Perl and Python but never found them enough better to be worth switching to.
If you want to check out another scripting language, I recommend Lua, because
It's powerful and remarkably simple, having the best power-to-weight ratio of all languages named here.
Like Tcl it was designed from the beginning to incorporate C code seamlessly. This facility works extremely well and greatly extends the range of problems for which it is useful (see Adobe Lightroom, World of Warcraft, Garry's Mod, CHDK).
The implementation is highly performant and brilliantly engineered. If you want to learn something about how languages are implemented, it will repay careful study.
If, however, your goal is to learn a new language to expand your mind, learn something else besides a scripting language. For example, learn Haskell and pick up some mind-blowing ideas (many stolen from the same sources that Guido stole from), or learn C and really understand exactly what's happening on the hardware.
The only relatively unbiased answer you can really look for is probably statistical, and you would still have to account for the natural tendency of people to follow the path of least resistance once one is found or carved.
How many people learnt Python to a decent level, found the language resonates with the way they want to work, then move to something else because the language or the ecosystem, or both, don't support their needs?
I'd say probably a single digit percentage of the educated userbase, wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to less than 5%.
Unless you have work related prospects that involve a different language, or you need to move sideways for similar reasons, I'd say you're probably best off learning something complimentary to Python rather than similar or equivalent.
C++ for low-level or computationally intensive tasks, CUDA if your field can take advantage of it (med-viz, CGI etc.), whatever flavour of shell/sysadmin oriented scripting and hacks float where you work (bash, tcl, awk or whatever else) and so on.
Personally the reason I haven't bothered past a first glance with ruby, php, or a number of other languages is simply that it's better ROI to keep working on my python skills than picking up something that offers mostly the same qualities just in different forms.
If you really want to learn something else for the sake of opening your mind up a bit, and want to stick to "scripting", then LUA was an interesting toy for me for a while, mostly for the ridiculous performance you can squeeze out of a relatively easy integration process, and because it is a rather different set of tracks compared to Python. That, and the fact WoW plugins had to be written in LUA ;)
I'll give an honest answer from my perspective.
No.
Having started scripting using batch, bash, and Perl, discovering Python was discovering precisely what I'd want from a scripting language (and more, but that's off topic). It integrates with familiar Unix interfaces, is modular, doesn't force any particular paradigm, cross platform and under active development. The same can be said of no other scripting language I know of.
The only other scripting languages I'd consider using is Lua or Scheme, for their smaller footprints and suitability for embedding, Python can be a little hefty. However they're hardly suitable for the more general purpose shell and other forms of scripting.
Update0
I just noticed mentions of Ruby and PHP in other answers, these both slipped my mind, because I'd never consider using them. Ruby is slower and not quite as popular, and PHP is more C/Perl like, with flatter interfaces, which comes with performance boons of its own. Using these alternatives to Python is a matter of taste.
To answer your first question: Do people learn one language and then ignore or dislike others?
Well, if you know one language well, you will need to see great advantages to move to another.
I started out using perl and eventually thought that there must be easier way to do some things. I picked up python and stopped using perl almost at once.
A little while later I thought I'd try ruby and learned a bit about that. The advantages over using python weren't big enough to switch, so I decided to stick with python. If I had started out using ruby, I'd probably be using that still.
If you are using python, I don't think you will easily find another scripting language that will win you over.
On the other hand, if you learn functional programming, you will probably learn a few new things, some of them will even be useful in your python programming, since a few things in python seems to be inspired by functional programming and knowing how to use them will make you a better programmer in general and a better python programmer too.
Learn a Lisp. Whether it's "scripting" or not, Eric Raymond had the right of it when he wrote:
"Lisp is worth learning for the
profound enlightenment experience you
will have when you finally get it;
that experience will make you a better
programmer for the rest of your days,
even if you never actually use Lisp
itself a lot."
The programming paradigm needed to be highly effective in Lisp is sufficiently unlike what you use with Python day-to-day that the perspective it gives is very, very much worth it.
And within Lisps, my choice? Clojure; like other Lisps, its macro system gives you capabilities comparable (actually superior) to the excellent metaprogramming in Python, but Clojure in particular has a focus on batteries-included practicality (and an intelligent, opinionated design) which will be familiar to anyone fond of GvR's instincts. Moreover, Clojure's strengths are extremely disjoint from Python's -- in particular, it shines at highly-multithreaded, CPU-bound concurrent programming, which is one of Python's weaknesses -- so having both in your toolbox increases the chance you'll have the right tool when a tricky job comes along.
(Is it scripting? In my view, that's pretty academic these days; if you have a REPL where you can type code and get an immediate response, modify the state of a running program, or experiment with an API, I see a language as "scripting" enough).
I would learn a statically typed language with very powerful type expression capabilities and awesome concurrency.
One of the following would be a good choice (in order of my preference):
Scala
F#
Haskell
Ocaml
Erlang
Typed languages like the above make you think different. Also these languages have REPLs so they can be used as a scripting language although truthfully I'm not really sure what the definition is of "scripting" language is.
Python is missing good concurrency builtin to the language so knowing how to deal with concurrency for many python programmers is a challenge.
I have found that strongly typed languages scale better for big projects for many reasons:
Because types are so important they become an invaluable way to communicate the problem
Refactoring in these languages is much much easier.
Automatic Serialization is sometimes easier too (although for Haskell thats less true).
A lot less time spent on writing assertions on type checking.
Browsing the code is easier because most IDEs will allow you click on and go to different types
I'm actually learning Scala after Python. From "Programming in Scala":
The name Scala stands for “scalable language.” The language is so named because it was designed to grow with the demands of its users. You can apply Scala to a wide range of programming tasks, from writing small scripts to building large systems.
Integration of object-oriented and functional programming inside the language with expressive strong static type system is interesting by itself. And yes, you can use Scala as scripting language. I feel uncomfortable coding in languages with dynamic typing discipline so Scala seems to be a good alternative. Besides its complexity at the initial learning stage.
If you satisfied with dynamic typing discipline take a look at the roots. Smalltalkof course. Try Squeak with Squeak by Example companion book or its open-source fork Pharo with Pharo by Example book for the start.
Ruby/Groovy/Perl if you'd like to stick to traditional scripting practices.
Otherwise I'd heartily recommend you Clojure and Scala - two of the more innovative programing languages of the past few years.
If you are already familiar with Python, you are unlikely to find something compelling in the same niche, although Ruby does have a very strong and vocal following that seems to like it very much. Perhaps you should consider a scripting language that fills a different role, such as BASH shell script for quick, simple scripts that don't need the complexity of Python or JavaScript which runs in the browser.
I can't say that I agree with wiping Ruby off the map... Ruby fixed every problem that perl had as far as syntax goes... I loved Python first but let ruby get a little more mature and it will get in the the fray more and more... Why do I support Ruby strongly? just step away from python for a few months and then give Ruby a chance... I was a Ruby hater when I was a python guy. But I can't hardly stand to use python at this point. One day someone is gonna clean up the GC and toss in some native threads and everybody better watch out.
off the rant, Python is a full featured, not just good, Great Language... Perl... what a mess... I don't know how Perl can look at itself in the mirror standing next to any other mainstream scripting language... PHP is much prettier... At least Perl is fast, right...(CPAN never hurt it either) if Speed is the real issue there are other interpreters that juice it up a bit... Jython, jRuby, PyPy... the list goes one, screw Bash...
If Python was so fast as C, the latter would be present in python apps/libraries?
Example: if Python was fast as C would PIL be written completely in Python?
To access "legacy" C libraries and OS facilities.
While you can of course use ctypes to access existing C code, you might not necessarily want to, in sufficiently complex cases: when you're coding to an interface designed for (and implemented in) C, not doing compilation can mean that small errors on the caller's side, that would simply refuse to compile properly in C, can result in crashes of the whole application.
So, using C code (rather than ctypes) for the purpose of reusing good existing C code can make a lot of sense (Cython is fine too, of course, since it does generate C code that, in case of caller-side errors, should fail to compile;-).
Recoding everything from scratch, rather than reusing good, existing, solid and finely tuned code, doesn't make much sense either way, of course -- there are so many interesting new problems to conquer, that spending your time just mimicking an existing, just-fine solution to an old and already-conquered problem is likely not going to be the best, most productive, and most satisfactory way to spend your time;-).
It makes sense to use C modules in Python for:
Performance
Libraries that won't be ported to Python (because of performance reasons, for example) or that use OS-specific functions
Scripting. For example, many games use Python, Lua and other languages as scripting languages. Therefore they expose C/C++ functions to Python.
As to your example: Yes, but Python is inherently slower than C. If both were equally fast, it would make sense to use Python because C code is often more prone to attacks (buffer overflows and stuff).
To access hardware.
I started off programming in Basic on the ZX81, then BASICA, GW-BASIC, and QBasic. I moved on to C (Ah, Turbo C 3.1, I hardly knew ye...)
When I got started in microcontrollers I regressed with the BASIC Stamp from Parallax. However, BASIC is/was awesome because it was so easy to understand and so hard to make a mistake. I moved on to assembly and C eventually because I needed the additional power (speed, capacity, resources, etc.), but I know that if the bar was much higher many people would never get into programming microcontrollers.
I keep getting an itch to make my own on-chip BASIC interpretor, but I wonder if there's need for BASIC now that Lua and Python are easily embeddable, and just as approachable as BASIC.
What, if any, are the advantages BASIC has over other languages?
Why is it still around?
If I decide to make a general purpose microcontroller board with an interpreter, is there any reason to make a version of BASIC?
Plenty of other languages are considered dead, but BASIC just keeps hanging on.
[This may come off sounding more negative than it really is. I'm not saying Basic is the root of all evil, others have said that. I'm saying it's a legacy we can afford to leave behind.]
"because it was so easy to understand and so hard to make a mistake" That's certainly debatable. I've had some bad experiences with utterly opaque basic. Professional stuff -- commercial products -- perfectly awful code. Had to give up and decline the work.
"What, if any, are the advantages Basic has over other languages?" None, really.
"Why is it still around?" Two reasons: (1) Microsoft, (2) all the IT departments that started doing VB and now have millions of lines of VB legacy code.
"Plenty of other languages are considered dead..." Yep. Basic is there along side COBOL, PL/I and RPG as legacies that sometimes have more cost than value. But because of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" policy of big IT, there they sit, sucking up resources who could easily replace it with something smaller, simpler and cheaper to maintain. Except it hasn't "failed" -- it's just disproportionately expensive.
30-year old COBOL is a horrible situation to rework. Starting in 2016 we'll be looking at 30-year old MS Basic that we just can't figure out, don't want to live without, and can't decide how to replace.
"but basic just keeps hanging on" It appears that some folks love Basic. Others see it as yet another poorly-designed language; it's advantages are being early to market and being backed by huge vendors (IBM, initially). Poorly-design, early-to-market only leaves us with a legacy that we'll be suffering with for decades.
I still have my 1965-edition Dartmouth Basic manual. I don't long for the good old days.
As an architecture, the main claim to fame of BASIC is that you could make BASIC interpreters very small - just a few KB. In the days of a DG Nova this was a win as you could use systems like Business BASIC to build a multiuser application on a machine with 64K of RAM (or even less).
BASIC (VB in particular) is a legacy system and has a large existing code-base. Arguably VB is really a language (some would say a thin wrapper over COM) that has a BASIC-like syntax. These days, I see little reason to keep the language around apart from people's familiarity with it and to maintain the existing code base. I certainly would not advocate new development in it (note that VB.Net is not really BASIC but just has a VB-like syntax. The type system is not broken in the way that VB's was.)
What is missing from the computing world is a relevant language that is easy to learn and tinker with and has mind-share in mainstream application development. I grew up in the days of 8-bit machines, and the entry barrier to programming on those systems was very low. The architecture of the machines was very simple, and you could learn to program and write more-or-less relevant applications on these machines very easily.
Modern architectures are much more complex and have a bigger hump to learn. You can see people pontificating on how kids can't learn to program as easily as they could back in the days of BASIC and 8-bit computers and I think that argument has some merit. There is something of a hole left that makes programming just that bit harder to get into. Toy languages are not much use here - for programming to be attractive it has to be possible to aspire to build something relevant with the language you are learning.
This leads to the problem of a language that is easy for kids to learn but still allows them to write relevant programmes (or even games) that they might actually want. It also has to be widely perceived as relevant.
The closest thing I can think of to this is Python. It's not the only example of a language of that type, but it is the one with the most mind-share - and (IMO) a perception of relevance is necessary to play in this niche. It's also one of the easiest languages to learn that I've experienced (of the 30 or so that I've used over the years).
Why not give Jumentum a try and see how it works for you?
http://jumentum.sourceforge.net/
it's an open source BASIC for micrcontrollers
The elua project is also lua for microcontrollers
http://elua.berlios.de/
BASIC persists, particularly in the STAMP implementation, because it is lower level than most other very-easy-to-learn programming languages. For most embedded BASIC implementations the BASIC instructions map directly to single or groups of machine instructions, with very little overhead. The same programs written in "higher level" languages like Lua or Python would run far slower on those same microcontrollers.
PS: BASIC variants like PBASIC have very little in common with, say, Visual BASIC, despite the naming similarity. They have diverged in very different ways.
Good question...
Basically (sic!), I have no answer. I would say just that Lua is very easy to learn, probably as easy as Basic (which was one of my first languages as well, I used dialects on lot of 8-bit computers...), but is more powerful (allowing OO or functional styles and even mixing them) and somehow stricter (no goto...).
I don't know well Python, but from what I have read, it is as easy, powerful and strict than Lua.
Beside, both are "standardized" de facto, ie. there are no dialects (beside the various versions), unlike Basic which has many variants.
Also both have carefully crafted VM, efficient, (mostly) bugless. Should you make your own interpretor, you should either take an existing VM and generate bytecode for it from Basic source, or make your own. Sure fun stuff, but time consuming and prone to bugs...
So, I would just let Basic have a nice retirement... :-P
PS.: Why it is hanging on? Perhaps Microsoft isn't foreign to that... (VB, VBA, VBScript...)
There are also lot of dialects around (RealBasic, DarkBasic, etc.), with some audience.
At the risk of sounding like two old-timers on rocking chairs, let me grumpily say that "Kids today don't appreciate BASIC" and then paradoxically say "They don't know how good they've got it."
BASICs greatest strength was always its comprehensibility. It was something that people could get. That was long ignored by academics and language developers.
When you talk about wanting to implement BASIC, I assume you're not talking about line-numbered BASIC, but a structured form. The problem with that is that as soon as you start moving into structured programming -- functions, 'why can't I just GOTO that spot?', etc. -- it really becomes unclear what advantages, if any, BASIC would have over, say, Python.
Additionally, one reason BASIC was "so easy to get right" was that in those days libraries weren't nearly as important as they are today. Libraries imply structured if not object-oriented programming, so again you're in a situation where a more modern dynamic scripting language "fits" the reality of what people do today better.
If the real question is "well, I want to implement an interpreter and so it comes down to return on investment," then it becomes a problem of an grammar that's actually easy to implement. I'd suggest that BASIC doesn't really have that many advantages in that regard either (unless you really do return to line numbers and a very limited grammar).
In short, I don't think you should invest your effort in a BASIC interpreter.
Well, these people seem to think that not only basic still has a place in the mobile space but also that they can make money off it:
http://www.nsbasic.com/symbian/
I started out on a ZX81 too. But as Tony Hoare said, programming in BASIC is like trying to do long division using roman numerals.
Plenty of other languages are
considered dead, but basic just keeps
hanging on.
Sadly yes. I blame Bill Gates for this...BASIC was on a stretcher with a priest saying the last rites for it, and then MS brought it back like Smallpox.
I used to program in BASIC in the QBasic days. QBASIC had subroutines, functions, structures (they used to be called types), and I guess that's it. Now, this seems limited compared to all the features that Python has - OO, lambdas, metaclasses, generators, list comprehensions, just to name a few off the top of my head. But that simplicity, I think, is a strength of BASIC. If you're looking at a simple embeddable language, I'd bet that QBasic will be faster and easier to understand. And a procedural langauge is probably more than sufficient for most embedding/scripting type of applications.
I'd say the most important reason BASIC is still around is Visual Basic. For a long time in the 90s, VB was the only way to write GUIs, COM and DB code for Windows without falling into one of the C++ Turing tarpits. [Maybe Delphi was a good option too, but unfortunately it never became as popular as VB]. I do think it is because of all this VB and VBA code that is still being used and maintained that BASIC still isn't dead.
That said, I'd say there's pretty a good rationale to write BASIC interpreter (maybe even compiler using LLVM or something similar) for BASIC today. You'll get a clean, simple easy to use and fast language if you implement something that resembles QBasic. You won't have to solve any language design issues and the best part is people will already know your language.
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 10 years ago.
The first language I learnt was PHP, but I have more recently picked up Python. As these are all 'high-level' languages, I have found them a bit difficult to pick up. I also tried to learn Objective-C but I gave up.
So, what language should I learn to bridge between Python to C
It's not clear why you need a bridge language. Why don't you start working with C directly? C is a very simple language itself. I think that hardest part for C learner is pointers and everything else related to memory management. Also C lang is oriented on structured programming, so you will need to learn how to implement data structures and algorithms without OOP goodness. Actually, your question is pretty hard, usually people go from low level langs to high level and I can understand frustration of those who goes in other direction.
The best place to start learning C is the book "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie.
You will recognise a lot of things from PHP, and you will be surprised how much PHP (and Perl, Python etc) do for you.
Oh and you also will need a C compiler, but i guess you knew that.
I generally agree with most of the others - There's not really a good stepping stone language.
It is, however, useful to understand what is difficult about learning C, which might help you understand what's making it difficult for you.
I'd say the things that would prove difficult in C for someone coming from PHP would be :
Pointers and memory management This is pretty much the reason you're learning C I imagine, so there's not really any getting around it. Learning lower level assembly type languages might make this easier, but C is probably a bridge to do that, not the other way around.
Lack of built in data structures PHP and co all have native String types, and useful things like hash tables built in, which is not the case in C. In C, a String is just an array of characters, which means you'll need to do a lot more work, or look seriously at libraries which add the features you're used to.
Lack of built in libraries Languages like PHP nowadays almost always come with stacks of libraries for things like database connections, image manipulation and stacks of other things. In C, this is not the case other than a very thin standard library which revolves mostly around file reading, writing and basic string manipulation. There are almost always good choices available to fill these needs, but you need to include them yourself.
Suitability for high level tasks If you try to implement the same type of application in C as you might in PHP, you'll find it very slow going. Generating a web page, for example, isn't really something plain C is suited for, so if you're trying to do that, you'll find it very slow going.
Preprocessor and compilation Most languages these days don't have a preprocessor, and if you're coming from PHP, the compilation cycle will seem painful. Both of these are performance trade offs in a way - Scripting languages make the trade off in terms of developer efficiency, where as C prefers performance.
I'm sure there are more that aren't springing to mind for me right now. The moral of the story is that trying to understand what you're finding difficult in C may help you proceed. If you're trying to generate web pages with it, try doing something lower level. If you're missing hash tables, try writing your own, or find a library. If you're struggling with pointers, stick with it :)
Learning any language takes time, I always ensure I have a measurable goal; I set myself an objective, then start learning the language to achieve this objective, as opposed to trying to learn every nook and cranny of the language and syntax.
C is not easy, pointers can be hard to comprehend if you’re not coming assembler roots. I first learned C++, then retro fit C to my repertoire but I started with x86 and 68000 assembler.
Python is about as close to C as you're going to get. It is in fact a very thin wrapper around C in a lot of places. However, C does require that you know a little more about how the computer works on a low level. Thus, you may benefit from trying an assembly language.
LC-3 is a simple assembly language with a simulated machine.
Alternatively, you could try playing with an interactive C interpreter like CINT.
Finally, toughing it out and reading K&R's book is usually the best approach.
Forget Java - it is not going to bring you anywhere closer to C (you have allready proved that you don't have a problem learning new syntax).
Either read K&R or go one lower: Learn about the machine itself. The only tricky part in C is pointers and memory management (which is closely related to pointers, but also has a bit to do with how functions are called). Learning a (simple, maybe even "fake" assembly) language should help you out here.
Then, start reading up on the standard library provided by C. It will be your daily bread and butter.
Oh: another tip! If you really do want to bridge, try FORTH. It helped me get into pointers. Also, using the win32 api from Visual Basic 6.0 can teach you some stuff about pointers ;)
C is a bridge onto itself.
K&R is the only programming language book you can read in one sitting and almost never pick it up again ...
My suggestion is to get a good C-book that is relevant to what you want to do. I agree that K & R is considered to be "The book" on C, but I found "UNIX Systems Programming" by Kay A. Robbins and Steven Robbins to be more practical and hands on. The book is full of clean and short code snippets you can type in, compile and try in just a few minutes each.
There is a preview at http://books.google.com/books?id=tdsZHyH9bQEC&printsec=frontcover (Hyperlinking it didn't work.)
I'm feeling your pain, I also learned PHP first and I'm trying to learn C++, it's not easy, and I am really struggling, It's been 2 years since I started on c++ and Still the extent of what I can do is cout, cin, and math.
If anyone reads this and wonders where to start, START LOWER.
Java might actually be a good option here, believe it or not. It is strongly based on C/C++, so if you can get the syntax and the strong typing, picking up C might be easier. The benefit is you can learn the lower level syntax without having to learn pointers (since memory is managed for you just like in Python and PHP). You will, however, learn a similar concept... references (or objects in general).
Also, it is strongly Object Oriented, so it may be difficult to pick up on that if you haven't dealt with OOP yet.... you might be better off just digging in with C like others suggested, but it is an option.
I think C++ is a good "bridge" to C. I learned C++ first at University, and since it's based on C you'll learn a lot of the same concepts - perhaps most notably pointers - but also Object Oriented Design. OO can be applied to all kinds of modern languages, so it's worth learning.
After learning C++, I found it wasn't too hard to pick up the differences between C++ and C as required (for example, when working on devices that didn't support C++).
try to learn a language which you are comfortable with, try different approach and the basics.
Languages are easy to learn (especially one like C)... the hard part is learning the libraries and/or coding style of the language. For instance, I know C++ fairly well, but most C/C++ code I see confuses me because the naming conventions are so different from what I work with on a daily basis.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is don't worry too much about the syntax, focus on said language's library. This isn't specific to C, you can say the same about c#, vb.net, java and just about every other language out there.
Pascal! Close enough syntax, still requires you to do some memory management, but not as rough for beginners.