Re: Exceptions in C/C++

Ed Jensen wrote:
jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No. They are against ANY change. Even C99 is too much change for them.
C99 is proof that trying to evolve C is probably pointless.

You confirm my sentence above.

I'm not against C evolving, I just recognize the fact that even if the
standard evolves, it won't be widely implemented enough to matter.

Implementors are already ignoring C99. Even if your suggested changes
became part of a future C standard, chances are implementors would
just ignore that standard, just as they ignore the C99 standard.
You confuse this newsgroup and the C language.
IBM, Intel, and many other companies have already
implemented the C99 standard. Do not confuse the
reject of C99 in this newsgroup with the "reject of C99".

You're right that some implementors have implemented C99, but I'm not
sure that's enough to keep C from losing more and more developers.


The problems that C has are fixable, and the
interest that simple languages arise is a proof that
a simple language is better for many applications than an overly
complex one like C++.

My compiler system has been downloaded more than 500 000
times in our main distribution site. Not counted there
are all the other downloads in other sites. Last week end
we went past the 2 000 downloads over a weekend.

C is interesting for many people. Many user of lcc-win
like it because it is so simple, small and efficient,
like the language it implements.

Your energies would probably be better spent working on your own
language or perhaps on the D programming language or something.
I think I am old enough to know what I do without having to follow your
advice.

Sorry, Jacob, I didn't mean it to sound offensive, I just think you
have plenty of good ideas and lots of energy that might be better
spent elsewhere.

Ok, do not worry. I think my energies are well spent here because
what I want is to convince people. If you try to convince people
that already agree with you, nothing is gained.


:-)


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... continuing to improve the language. ... standard, the addition of "auto" alone seems to make the standard ... there are basically no C99 compilers and there is no demand from ... support), and 2) Non-determinable integer scalar sizes, that are not ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Why the C committee doesnt provide an implementation when the standard is published?
    ... It is THE de-facto standard on the desktop. ... have pointed out recently the current crop of MS compilers are very good ... diverged one way whilst C went a different way 95 and C99. ... and quite a number of C99 language features. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... But C99 basically addresses none of these problems over C89. ... problems with the C language: 1) No simple way to express a high-word ... with that "de facto standard". ... int8_t denotes a signed integer type with a width of exactly 8 bits. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks
    ... >> problem than the wrong language, ... FreeBSD is not the standard. ... C99 may have tried to accomodate the various ... It just so happens that I am very aware of strn* problems. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Stack growth direction to thwart buffer overflow attacks
    ... >> problem than the wrong language, ... FreeBSD is not the standard. ... C99 may have tried to accomodate the various ... It just so happens that I am very aware of strn* problems. ...
    (comp.security.unix)