this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
78 points (93.3% liked)

Programming

17313 readers
68 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The title itself is a recipe for disaster. Also this is a semi rant.

Yesterday I was informed that I will have the honour to implement the core functionality - which is an interface layer to use the driver of a very expensive hardware shit - of the software I’ve been working on as a frontend dev.

There are two possibilities for the language: C++ or C#. The one that was proposed/imposed is C#, which I know nothing of, while at least I have some hobbyist experience with C++; when asked if I could take some time to familiarise myself with C# I was basically laughed in the face, saying I will learn on the field and at least some of them have some experience with it.

Should I insist to go with C++, or is that an even worse idea in an already fucked up situation?

(page 2) 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Depending on the (API) complexity and speed requirements it might be useful to start by implementing in plain old C. Easy enough to add on class structures later (i.e. transcode to either of those options) if needed. Also consider Rust, as long as you're going to learn something, it'd be nice if it was current and forward facing.

[–] half_built_pyramids -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

system.out.you.are.fucked()

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›