51–60 of 71 posts
I see " Micro: compiling micro library (~64K) for the embed system ", now that caught my attention! Should I then assume that the compatible platforms are actually more than the listed Windows, Linux, Mac, and mobile OSes? I'm on the front of AVR development, and cool new things always arrive late (understandably, if they arrive at all...) to our little corner of the world :( But I assume that "embedded" here will me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
c99
Not supporting obsolete versions of C is utterly awesome.
I'm not seeing tests anywhere. Am I blind or are they hidden away or non-existent? Thx in advance.
While this might be a valid point, I really don't like the manner in which it is expressed. Feigned surprise, pretend humility and, most importantly, lack of basic respect towards fellow developer(s).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not supporting obsolete versions of C is utterly awesome.
some would say that C itself is obsolete.. Ok, I can hear a bunch of people already piping up and whining how they're programming on a 8-bit toaster and only have a C compiler..but apart from that there are no real reasons to use C anymore since it's obsolete.
Rust is interesting if you can live with slow compile times and 4X the memory footprint of C.
I'm not seeing tests anywhere. Am I blind or are they hidden away or non-existent? Thx in advance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
some would say that C itself is obsolete.. Ok, I can hear a bunch of people already piping up and whining how they're programming on a 8-bit toaster and only have a C compiler..but apart from that there are no real reasons to use C anymore since it's obsolete.
Until rust came along you had three non CG options C, C++ and ADA. If you also have a no heap requirement you're left with just C and ADA. Rust is interesting if you can live with slow compile times and 4X the memory footprint of C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not supporting obsolete versions of C is utterly awesome.
C89 is too old, too many grammar restrictions. And now the mainstream compiler basically supports c99.
The versions do have other differences, of course, but they're rarely used (the next most common one is designated initializers, which for me are the most annoying to convert).
I mean, it is your code, i just found the grammar restrictions part weird since really there isn't that much of a practical difference between C99 and C89 to the point i personally never felt the need to use C99.
(note that i focus on the language bits, C99 provides some extra library functionality but even then the most useful part is stdint.h which can be implemented in almost any C89 compiler anyway)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
some would say that C itself is obsolete.. Ok, I can hear a bunch of people already piping up and whining how they're programming on a 8-bit toaster and only have a C compiler..but apart from that there are no real reasons to use C anymore since it's obsolete.
Until rust came along you had three non CG options C, C++ and ADA. If you also have a no heap requirement you're left with just C and ADA. Rust is interesting if you can live with slow compile times and 4X the memory footprint of C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C89 is too old, too many grammar restrictions. And now the mainstream compiler basically supports c99.
What grammar restrictions? I've converted a few C99 libraries to C89 (since i prefer that one and i often work with older compilers because they are faster) and 99% of the time the reason a library uses C99 is inline variable declaration (which IMO is a bad style, but that is subjective) and // comments (which most C89 compilers support as an extension anyway). The versions do have other differences, of course, but t…
printf("Hello World!\n");
int x = 7;
printf("%d!\n", x);
return 0;