Slashdot Mirror
Survey Says C Dominated New '08 Open-Source Projects
svonkie writes "C overwhelmingly proved to be the most popular programming language for thousands of new open-source projects in 2008, reports The Register (UK). According to license tracker Black Duck Software, which monitors 180,000 projects on nearly 4,000 sites, almost half — 47 per cent — of new projects last year used C. 17,000 new open-source projects were created in total. Next in popularity after C came Java, with 28 per cent.
In scripting, JavaScript came out on top with 20 per cent, followed by Perl with 18 per cent.
PHP attracted just 11 per cent, and Ruby six per cent. The numbers are a surprise, as open-source PHP has proved popular as a web-site development language, while Ruby's been a hot topic for many."
I can C clearly now...
C|N>K
Open-source iPhone development?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Jose can you C? Then you've got a job at HP!
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Now that's just being subjective!
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
You use python ?!
I died a little inside...
Now I have two reasons to use Python.
Screw all the C variants. Where did Fortran place?
God wrote in Lisp
Ostensibly, yes. But God hacked most of the Universe together with Perl.
...as measured by lines of code
(ducks)
Actually, C != C++ is undefined behavior.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
COBOL? Anyone? hello?
I'm surprised python didn't make the list.
Agreed. Someone must be slapped with a halibut for this!
Where it belonged, behind Lisp!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Replying my own - I would prefer to put it this way
Is it cross-platform?
Technically - Yes
Practically - Yes
Out-of-the-box - Not always.
Huh?
Well, while you're at it, why not making a more complete list:
Technically - Yes
Practically - Yes
Out-of-the-box - Not always
In principle - Yes
Philosophically - Yes and No.
Karmically - No
Politically - Yes
Hypothetically - In theory, yes
My last brainfuck website failed because the bf compiler got confused between language operators and XHTML tags, and my client refused to pay the $10,000 brainfuck developer fee anyways. Now I just write them in x86 assembly and my development time is much-improved - I finished a 10 page site in under half a decade!
What's the bet that most of the 7,000 new open source projects were GNOME bindings for "Hello World"?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
why the hell would you need that in sane code.
The variable C is a pointer to an array of objects with an overloaded != operator.
[you insensitive clod!]
Mi parolas esperanton, diabla malsentemulo!
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
C pound is a total waste of time and effort.[...]I know they want it pronounced c sharp
I'm a music major, you insensitive clod!
Would calling it D-Flat make you feel any better?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
When I find my code in tons of trouble,
Friends and colleagues come to me,
Speaking words of wisdom:
Write in C.
As the deadline fast approaches,
And bugs are all that I can see,
Somewhere, someone whispers:
Write in C.
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, oh, write in C.
LOGO's dead and buried,
Write in C.
I used to write a lot of FORTRAN,
For science it worked flawlessly.
Try using it for graphics!
Write in C.
If you've just spent nearly 30 hours,
Debugging some assembly,
Soon you will be glad to
Write in C.
Write in C, Write in C,
Write in C, yeah, Write in C.
BASIC's not the answer.
Write in C.
Write in C, Write in C
Write in C, oh, Write in C.
Pascal won't quite cut it.
Write in C.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
From the draft of the next C++ standard, n2798, 1.9 [intro.execution]/16:
Since the built-in == operator doesn't have a sequence point between its argument, the side effect of c++ is unsequenced relative to the value computation of c on the left hand side of the ==, and thus the behaviour is undefined.
Also you find in the latest public draft of the 1998 C++ standard, CD2, 5 [expr]/4:
Note that in c == c++, on the LHS the prior value of c is accessed not in order to determine the new value, but only to compare it with the result of the right hand side. Therefore it was undefined in C++ even back then. I don't have access to any version (draft or otherwise) of the C standard, but I think it's undefined in C, too (although the exact wording probably is different again).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I guess when they surveyed half of the Perl projects, they assumed it was meaningless gibberish and left them out of the survey
*runs from angry mob*
Slashdot hates COBOL:
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.