Click here to Skip to main content
11,709,581 members (54,736 online)
Click here to Skip to main content

Why C and C++ are still relevant in current times

, 20 Sep 2012 CPOL 11.1K 2
Rate this:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
C and C++ are still very useful indeed.


When C was first invented by Dennis Ritchie in the early 1970s, his main objective was to create a language that was easy to read, fast, powerful, easy to learn and most of all, extendable. Before that programming required either knowing the byte codes for the processor you were developing or using FORTRAN and COBOL. Now FORTRAN and COBOL are nice, human readable languages like BASIC, but BASIC is interpreted and the other languages were verbose.  When Dennis Ritchie invented C from BPCL, the keywords were concise, fast, flexible and portable.

When you write code in machine or byte code, you know exactly how many instruction cycles or ticks it takes to execute the instruction. Generally, it’s one. Assembly language is a way to write byte code without knowing the actual number for an instruction. So the instruction mov ax, 3 sets the value of 3 into the ax register. It costs one tick. Are you lost?  Ok, let me explain.

The processor of any computer has registers, or small spots of memory directly accessible that it uses as it performs instructions. Some registers are general purpose, others are special purpose but the values in them are used by the processor to aid in its work. Want to add two values together?  The processor will add two registers together. Add ax,bx for example adds bx to ax and stores the result in ax. Think of it (for the C-style language initiated) as ax += bx; OKAY!  Why is this important?

Ok that the instruction idx = 5; Assume idx is an integer.  It’s fairly straight-forward. Set idx to 5. But what happens under the hood.  Well the data segment and an offset register (okay assembly language experts, I am over simplifying but work with me) at set to point to the memory location of idx. When the value of 5 is assigned to the memory location. Depending on the processor, the “5” may be MOVed into another register which then gets MOVed into idx. But all in all, it takes 3 to four processor ticks to accomplish this instruction. That’s the beauty of C. It’s meant to take the power of assembly language and make it more concise. The compiler translates the instructions directly into machine code and the instructions run.

In an object oriented paradigm however, things are not so simple. The simple assignment I have been discussing can become amazingly more complex. Because the assignment operator is overloadable (that is, for the statement idx = 5, depending on what idx is, I can write a function that is called when I say idx =), the amount of code increases. Add implicit copy constructors and cast operators and what is a simple statement can turn under the hood into a fair amount of code. Imagine if you will that I have a class called Integer. Integer has an assignment operator and copy constructor defined. It also has a typecasting operator (operator int) defined as well. So idx = 5 can become a typecast 5 to Integer, creating another “implicit” Integer object that then gets passed to the assignment operator.

We say garbage collection is a good thing, but if you use a lot of memory, you still are asked to “plan” it properly. My argument is while garbage collection can help guard against memory leaks it still doesn’t make a good substitute for proper code planning and programming in the first place.  As processors have gotten faster and memory cheaper and more expansive, the Windows OS for example has become bloated! I remember (back when I was a teenager), using Windows 286 and Windows 3.0. I was amazed at how many programs I could run with 640k of memory, two floppy drives, and a 40 MB HDD (yes megabyte!). Older programmers in the time of Ritchie, Thompson, and Stroustrup knew how to maximize the use of 16 bytes of memory. Today, we will throw away 16K with no thought.

The other thing about the newer Java and C# is both languages are still interpreted. Yes, they get compiled to a bytecode, but since the processor doesn’t understand any other instruction set but its own, the bytecode has to be interpreted or recompiled to run. What do think the Java Virtual Machine and .NET Just-In-Time Compiler are written in?  They require native code. Not managed code.

Above all else, what do you think your operating system is written in?  Major applications like Microsoft Office?  Ever since DOS 3.0, C and C++ have become the standard in writing operating systems (not discounting C’s birth with UNIX and their continued coexistence and codependence. While assembly language is still used to a limited extent, especially when wanting to connect with a piece of hardware with no overload, C is the next best thing.  You can write the lowest code in assembly language and from C call the function in question. You can set the address of the assembly language function to a pointer declared naked so no prolog or epilog code is assumed if needed (functions usually have code to set up parameters and local variables on the stack and save the state of the system and then reverse the stack changes after the function runs). An operating system kernel doesn’t have time to be recompiled before execution. When you’re at the heart of a preemptive multitasking operating system, every tick counts!  You cannot have any unnecessary instructions.

When C was first developed forty years ago, it gave us just want we need and little of what we didn’t. Now I’m not against the newer languages. They serve a valuable purpose in the age of Rapid Development. But let’s not forget what these languages and their tools are written in. Combine that with the operating system and all our major applications and you’ll see C and C++ are still very useful indeed.




About the Author

Tarie Nosworthy
Software Developer (Senior)
United States United States
No Biography provided

You may also be interested in...

Comments and Discussions

QuestionThank you.... Pin
Tarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:36
memberTarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:36 
QuestionThere were some '90s edition (when I started programming) Pin
Tarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:33
memberTarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:33 
QuestionInformation Correctness? Pin
Sharjith20-Sep-12 8:24
memberSharjith20-Sep-12 8:24 
QuestionCOBOL and FORTRAN interpreted? Pin
Michel Renaud20-Sep-12 8:23
memberMichel Renaud20-Sep-12 8:23 
QuestionMaybe..... Pin
Tarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:22
memberTarie Nosworthy20-Sep-12 8:22 
QuestionMore like a blog post Pin
Mika Wendelius20-Sep-12 8:16
mvpMika Wendelius20-Sep-12 8:16 



| Advertise | Privacy | Terms of Use | Mobile
Web03 | 2.8.150819.1 | Last Updated 20 Sep 2012
Article Copyright 2012 by Tarie Nosworthy
Everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2015
Layout: fixed | fluid