this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
287 points (94.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

28058 readers
834 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Post:

If you’re still shipping load‑bearing code in C, C++, Python, or vanilla JavaScript in 2025, you’re gambling with house money and calling it “experience.”

As systems scale, untyped or foot‑gun‑heavy languages don’t just get harder to work with—they hit a complexity cliff. Every new feature is another chance for a runtime type error or a memory bug to land in prod. Now layer LLM‑generated glue code on top of that. More code, more surface area, less anyone truly understands. In that world, “we’ll catch it in tests” is wishful thinking, not a strategy.

We don’t live in 1998 anymore. We have languages that:

  • Make whole classes of bugs unrepresentable (Rust, TypeScript)
  • Give you memory safety and concurrency sanity by default (Rust, Go)
  • Provide static structure that both humans and LLMs can lean on as guardrails, not red tape

At this point, choosing C/C++ for safety‑critical paths, or dynamic languages for the core of a large system, isn’t just “old school.” It’s negligence with better marketing.

Use Rust, Go, or TypeScript for anything that actually matters. Use Python/JS at the edges, for scripts and prototypes.

For production, load‑bearing paths in 2025 and beyond, anything else is you saying, out loud:

“I’m okay with avoidable runtime failures and undefined behavior in my critical systems.”

Are you?

Comment:

Nonsense. If your code has reached the point of unmaintainable complexity, then blame the author, not the language.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

A little hair-splicy, but an assembly-free bootloader is definitely doable on some platforms -- Cortex-M processors load the stack pointer from the vector table, and the initialized memory setup can be taken care of with memcpy.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

True, but you're not gonna be setting the access levels or doing anything else with control registers on a Correx-M in pure C, let alone boot to a safe state with zeroed registers.

[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, if your bootloader is expected to handle that you're going to need assembly. That can also be delegated to the kernel, RTOS, or bare metal reset vector later on in the boot sequence, though. I had to write a bootloader for an embedded system like this once and it basically just applied firmware updates, validated the firmware, and handed control over to the firmware.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You're just describing more components that are written in C and assembly.

[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

My point is that assembly isn't strictly required. You can do memory-mapped reads and writes from C all you want, which is enough for plenty of I/O: storage, serial, sensors, GPIOs.... You can build quite a few things with these without touching system registers.

I'm not saying we should abolish assembly. Just that it isn't a universal requirement.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

My point is that there's still gonna be some somewhere. You're just trying to handwave it away because somebody else wrote it.

[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. Let's say that...

  • The stack pointer is defined in the vector table to point somewhere into RAM.
  • The reset vector points to some function _entry(), with a linker script to take care of its memory placement.
  • All other interrupt handlers are arbitrary C functions.

You can compile only your C source file that defines _entry() and interrupt vectors, then flash the resulting firmware. No assembly involved, no external linkage, and no stdlib required.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, and this is ignoring interrupts, access privileges, thread stacks ... what's the C equivalent of the MSR and MRS instructions?

[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Again, those aren't universally required. You can make an embedded device that reads the ambient light levels and turns on an LED when it's dark without thread stacks, privileges, or interrupts. Don't make your system more complicated than it needs to be.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Turning on an LED when it's dark doesn't require a microcontroller, let alone a Cortex-M. You can accomplish that with analog electronics.

Anyway, you're moving the goalposts all over the place. What happened to the RTOS kernel from earlier?

[–] arthropod_shift@programming.dev 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not moving the goalposts at all, you're just missing the forest for the trees. The main point is that there are plenty of use cases that can use pure C with no assembly. I went with a simple example because I thought you'd have an issue with more complex examples like sending a notification over SMS via modem or providing a serial interface for sensor data.

I don't feel like arguing for the sake of arguing, though, and I feel like we're in a pedantry spiral, so I'll leave the conversation at that. Hope you enjoy your day.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

You're the one who decided to start splitting hairs. Flounce on away.