Hacker News

points by trashb 4 days ago | 0 comments

  > How were the senior programmers able to do all of this? I'm just amazed.

I think it has to do with a combination of factors that changed over the years. First of all computer science was viewed more theoretical and less applied at that time. A computer scientist would be interested in optimizing a certain algorithm instead of making an app.

Secondly the systems in that time where less complex meaning it was easier to understand and experiment with fundamental parts of the computer.

Lastly at that time "programming" was closer to the metal so a average computer scientist at that time would likely have more knowledge of the deep internals compared to an average programmer today.

  > C seems like a language that is simple but can really do a lot

I like to borrow a phrase from the realm of gaming: "easy to learn hard to master".

[–] ahoka 4 days ago

I have always thought about C being a language with "simple" syntax (but things like type declarations are hell), but very complicated semantics.

[–] 1718627440 4 days ago

I think one of the issue in C is that some semantics do not have a syntax, you simply are required to write the code according to it. For example values/objects actually do have a type (effective type) and that is fundamentally what is deciding whether your access is UB. But you never declare that, you simply need to use the right type on access. Or there are ownership semantics in C, every usable interface description describes them in prose. If it's not defined, you are almost guaranteed to invoke UB. That's why I get a bit annoyed if Rust fanboys act like they own the concept of ownership, no it exists in C as well, but C does have different ownership semantics.

[–] kunley 3 days ago

The phrase "to own the concept of ownership" is so cool.