@programming@programming.dev It’s time to return to the roots, to the C programming language.
Why am I writing this post? Not because I hope for something or believe in change. These are just words. I could write this at the end, but then you would be looking for answers for me while reading, and I don’t need them. They won’t change anything.
So here it is. I don’t claim to be a software development guru or a C language expert. I’m just a simple developer.
- Why are we looking for new technologies? Why do we want to be part of a community that is buzzing with new projects? Why do we think that this new programming language will definitely help us create something amazing and truly great and, of course, will make us rich and provide us with a comfortable old age?
- Why are we offered so many courses in so many programming languages and frameworks? Why do we teach what is required for companies that make money from us?
- Why are there a lot of conferences on banal simple things, such as *** framework or ### technology (so as not to offend anyone), and there, with a smart look, newly minted gurus tell us how important it is to be able to transfer the value to the client and how to use certain templates?
- Why do computers become more and more powerful, but programs continue to lag?
- Why, when applying for a job, do we look for a vacancy based on knowledge of a programming language, but find it only based on knowledge of certain frameworks? Is it really difficult for a professional programmer to learn a framework in a week?
- Why do we go into software development with the enthusiasm to create something great, but end up in a situation where we are developing some other catalog or some other digital yo-yo to make money?
Reason: because we want our passion for programming, our interest, to also bring us income.
Result: we do not earn this money for ourselves, but for companies whose main goal is to quickly receive income from the software they sell.
I look at how programming has changed over the course of 25 years, what they teach at universities, and where they start. And I came to the conclusion that on a large scale, it was all for the benefit of giant companies or the government.
We must protect the “intimate” knowledge of the foundations and water the roots ourselves. Because they don’t realize, they don’t see that if the roots are not watered, the branches on which they sit will dry out. Therefore, who, if not us?!
Why you are so strongly recommended me keep calm? Why I can’t learn or talk about other languages? Why I can’t have strong opinions about C, I have learned it 25 years ago also, and from my perspective learning never end, you can’t be completely professional in something.
I haven’t told you to keep calm. I’m just confused about you repeating the same points, in the same words, over and over, even after being told that you don’t have your facts correct.
I’m not saying you can’t learn or talk about other languages; I’m confused by the mismatch between your posts criticizing people for promoting newer tech stacks and the ones where you seem to be promoting newer tech stacks yourself.
25 years of experience is certainly enough to have strong opinions, but until your last comment I had the impression that you had a year or less of experience in C, hence my question.
I understand that my topics are disgusting to you and only a few can agree with me. And that’s normal, such a reaction is quite predictable.
I wanted to apologize, just so you understand, I do not deny the existence of other languages and technologies, evolution, etc.
I just want to draw attention to the fact that much of the programming world is built on hype and on the needs of companies that do not pursue the goal of creating effective programs, do not think about the energy and resource intensity of their products. They only think about making money. This is crap. And newcomers to the field are raised in this crap.
Rust feels like entirely the wrong target for that sort of criticism, especially regarding “energy and resource intensity”. Rust is well-known to be comparable to C in its efficiency.