Re: So what Standard are we working off?

Frederick Gotham said:

Keith Thompson posted:


When the 1999 updated standard was issued, there was already an
existing standard that had been nearly universally adopted. It wasn't
perfect, but it did make it possible to write actual portable code.
There wasn't nearly as much demand for C99 as the was for C89; it made
the difference between having one standard and having another
different standard.


Do you think the C99 Standard will ever replace the C90 Standard, or do
you think the C community is content with C90 and does not want to change
anything?

I think the part of the C community that cares about portability wants a
widely-implemented standard, which it already has. Until C99 becomes as
widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need portability?

And the part of the C community that couldn't give two hoots about
portability aren't interested in the Standard anyway - they just want
something that works on /their/ compiler, and many such people think the
Standard (if they've even heard of it) takes second place to their compiler
documentation.

Is there anything particularly unpleasant about C99?

The presumption that people are using it, which is a far from accurate
presumption. I am not using C99, and as far as my compiler is concerned the
// comment is a syntax error, and I wish people wouldn't use it in clc
because it means an extra step for me before I can compile the code.

When I first started
to realise that everyone was using C90, my first presumption about the
situation was that there was some horrible feature about C99 which nobody
liked (VLA's maybe?)?

Non-portability is a ghastly feature.

Are there ever times when you're programming in C that you would like to
use a C99 feature that isn't present in C90?

No, but there are certainly times when I wish other people wouldn't use a
C99 feature that isn't present in C90.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Storgae durations
    ... standard you referred to is no longer current. ... advocating C99 and saying that C90 is obsolete, ... Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability ... there are implementations for C99 that target those platforms. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Some general questions about C and good practice
    ... C89 is the 1989 ANSI standard, the first official standard for the ... C99 is the 1999 ISO standard. ... the C90 standard, but very few implementations fully support it. ... but few compilers yet implement ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: The problems in comp.lang.c
    ... Which is standard and accepted. ... varying subsets of C99, while a few claim full conformance. ... but it may be that implementations for DSPs and the ... Well, the example Jacob posted was actually declaring the variable in the for statement rather than just mixed declaration, and that does have portability issues. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Any plans to remove obsolescent features?
    ... as proposing two changes in two successive Standards. ... be "incompatible changes" from the standpoint of C90 and C99. ... Standard to "forbid" things. ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: Is Chris Hills a troll?
    ... Nevertheless, C90 is widely implemented, and widely used. ... programmers use C90+extensions, because most C programmers don't have a ... C99, mostly, is not. ... Either C is what the Standard ...
    (comp.lang.c)