Re: Why do you like C more than other programming languages?

On 15 Jul, 03:37, s0s...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

You exaggerate your case. I have certainly criticised C99, partly for
introducing features that seem unnecessary, and partly because so few
conforming implementations exist after all this time. When it becomes as
widely implemented as C90, it will become useful. Wake me up when that
happens, won't you?

this looks like an argument to me... (see later)

<snip>

Where portability matters, C99 is not an option. Even where portability
doesn't matter, C99 is frequently not an option. So how could I possibly
recommend it? It would be unkind to suggest to people that they introduce
non-portability into their code by using C99 features.

<snip>

[...] It is precisely because so many
implementors cannot be bothered to implement C99 properly that it is
impractical to recommend it for people to use. Of course, some
implementors can't even be bothered to implement C90 properly...

Nonsense. You've just expressed a bunch of apparently personal
opinions without giving any arguments to them.

he's not alone in them.


Why is C99 not portable?

lack of compilers. See also C#


Why do the features that it introduces seem unnecessary to
you?

only Richard can answer this. But they don't tempt me much either.
If C99 compilers were readily available (and implemented at least
a consistent subset of the standard) I'd be more interested.
bool, int*_t, VLAs, snprintf, designated initialisers,
variadic macros all look interesting. complex I've no interst in.

(I find most of them incredibly useful.)

good for you


Why is it "not an option" when portability matters,

compilers

and even when portability doesn't matter?

pass

By the way, the fact that there are too few C99 implementations is not
the Standard's fault.

no, but in the real world compiler availability matters.
Why is C# an unusual choice of language in embedded
programming?


--
Nick Keighley

Aetheist: someone who believes the Michaelson-Morley experiments were
wrong.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Storgae durations
    ... to see how you can sustain a claim to general portability. ... I use C99 for my desktop. ... Most C compilers seem to have implement *parts* of C99 but only a few ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Why do you like C more than other programming languages?
    ... many implementors cannot be bothered to implement C99 properly that ... there are too few conforming C99 implementations for ... by existing compilers, or if they wish to do so in spite of it. ... He isn't "preventing"? ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Storgae durations
    ... C99 implementation exist, a given customer may not be prepared to lay ... true that many programs require features that are not available in ISO C ... and whose models and interfaces differ from platform to platform, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Storgae durations
    ... It is not in dispute that C90 *was* the Standard against which people ... you who claim that things have changed - that most people now use C99. ... conform perfectly, it fails to be a perfect implementation. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Sequence Point before actual function call
    ... The first time grates. ... Expressions, and it seems that 'result' is used practically ... C99: 6.5 Expressions ...
    (comp.lang.c)