[andresmanz]

Same here, I'm 26. The industry has changed a lot when people realized you could make a shitload of money with the web/scripting stuff. Coding schools, open source communities and huge companies love HTML and JavaScript and Python and Ruby for their simplicity. Just take a bunch of people, tell them they could make a lot of money by learning some dead simple languages and there you go. Doesn't matter if they write the most disastrous code in the whole universe.

Look at Code Academy, for example. They add new programming languages and technologies every now and then, but basically it's always the same. Just like their audience. They won't add C to that list, because that wouldn't work for this average not-nerdy-enough-for-real-programming audience.

[peferron]

Yes! JS, Python and Ruby are just "dead simple" "scripting" languages that only serve to "make a shitload of money" and aren't "real programming".

Real programmers (like me) use C.

Seriously, no. Just no.

And if I wanted to prevent people from writing "the most disastrous code in the whole universe", teaching C instead of JS would be much, much lower in the list than teaching how to split code into modules/libraries, write testable code, etc.

[Mikushi]

> And if I wanted to prevent people from writing "the most disastrous code in the whole universe", teaching C instead of JS would be much, much lower in the list than teaching how to split code into modules/libraries, write testable code, etc.

And for me that would be much much lower than teaching how to keeps things simple. The whole modern web has a bad case of over engineering, everything is modules of modules of modules, with so many tools associated you get a headache trying to install a simple JavaScript library (what is wrong with a download link and I drop the lib on my page, nothing that is what).

I'm all for modern approaches but I can't help but feel many developers have lost touch with what writing clean code is, it's not making module, libraries or even tests, it's making sure what you are doing is as simple as it can be and efficient at it. Sadly most modern web stack fail at that. All hidden in mumbo jumbo of modules and dependencies no-one really needed or asked for, often created by people who never questioned the purpose of what they were doing, or if the whole internet needed it (because you are at Google and have found a neat way to deal with your huge JS stack doesn't mean the whole web needed it too, and that you needed to spent a whole lot of effort making people adopt it).

As much as you make fun of C, learning and writing C will teach you to keep you programs simple and efficient, because the language requires it. And that's coming from someone who started programming with Perl, then PHP, and only learned C later on.

Makes thing simple not simpler should be the cardinal rule of programming, not modularize and test everything, those are situational, the former applies all the time.

[peferron]

> As much as you make fun of C

I didn't make fun of C. I made fun of a comment posted by a C programmer, which is very different. I have absolutely nothing against C.

> C will teach you to keep you programs simple and efficient, because the language requires it

From what I've read, the OpenSSL codebase is definitely not simple, and I'm not sure it's efficient either—it would depend on how you define efficiency. So your affirmation seems factually incorrect.

Other than that, I agree with your post. Simplicity is awesome. No point in using Angular to build a landing page if static HTML can do the job just as well. (Edit: let me take that back. There can be a point: the pleasure of experimenting and learning something new.)

[zobzu]

Learn C, use python/go/whatever for most tasks.

C teaches you how stuff works. Its important.

[vocatus_gate]

Question coming from a long-time sysad whose experience is almost entirely batch and PowerShell, what does it mean to write "testable" code?

[scarecrowbob]

You write code that can be broken up finely enough into discrete, stand alone modules that can each be run through a series of tests.

For instance, you might create a model class, and then you know that model should have a name, shouldn't be able to be saved without a name, the name should be x-number of characters.

Then you can write a series of tests that makes sure that, regardless of how the model implements that name, all your assumptions about what that name should look and act like don't change without throwing a red-flag up to whoever is changing that model.

[mtone]

Say you want to test how a program fares when strings are malformed, or the disk is full, etc. It can be hard to simulate this if the code refers to variables and results from functions from all over the place.

Making code into reusable modules code is generally a good thing, but it's even better if you make them in a way that will help you test those chunks independently as well - that is testable code.

[toyg]

Usually it's about keeping it granular enough that various sub-activities can be tested in isolation. If you have one function with 10000 LOCs, that's not really testable beyond "something doesn't work".

Then of course you need some way to automatically run these tests, but that's usually provided by IDEs or standard libraries these days.

Edit: most curious downvote ever...

[hrnnnnnn]

Obligatory because of "real programming" reference:

https://xkcd.com/378/