|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Like, in Haskell, if I want a 64-bit unsigned integer, I say "Word64".
>> In C, I say...
>
> uint64_t
>
> (Yes, it has been standard for almost 12 years already.)
Well, now I've seen everything... (All the sources I looked at said you
have to write "long long unsigned int" or some mojo like that.)
>> Assembly gives you total control, if that's what you want.
>
> And how do you specify a 64-bit unsigned integer in assembly, exactly?
> (Remember: You complained how C integral types are system-dependent.)
In assembly, you don't even "specify" how big a given data item is. This
is an implicit property of what instructions you use on that data.
Assembly isn't even high-level enough to pretend that it has data types.
It just supports what the hardware supports.
There's a reason most people don't write assembly any more.
>> Haskell lets
>> you get on with writing a complex algorithm, if that's what you want. C
>> lets you do neither of these things.
>
> Depends on the algorithm.
I would imagine so.
> C++ is definitely better in this aspect
Agreed. Writing programs that work properly seems a lot easier in C++
than in C.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |