When the inventor of a language can calmly tell you it is quirky, flawed, it immediately shows how enormously successful it is.
The Development of the C Language (1993)
531–536 of 536 posts
Re: The Development of the C Language (1993)
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need a separate linter for this stuff today, proper compilers (anything but MSVC basically) have the most important type-related warnings in the default warning set, and it always makes sense to bump warnings to the highest level (both in C and C++ btw) - also (because I know this will be brought up): implicit conversion of a void* to other pointer types is a feature, not a bug ;)
Even enabling -Wall is a debatable point of view in some circles. VC++ is actually quite good, has SAL, /analyse and SFIR. Also much better than many other compilers, when looking beyond the big three. Implicit conversations is a common source of errors. Certainly a nice feature for pentesting.
MSVC is almost completely silent with the default warning level though, both in C and C++ mode, at least from my experience (it might have gotten better in very recent versions, I wouldn't have noticed since first thing I do is bump the warning level to /W4 anyway).
Re: The Development of the C Language (1993)
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly because I don't want to learn another language. And because most of the world uses C for low level stuff. You can say that Esperanto is a much better international language than English but what good does it do if nobody speaks it?
Veering off topic, there is a great rant about why Esperanto is a horrible international language: https://web.archive.org/web/20110515155117/http://www.xibalb...
Justin Rye's site is now at http://jbr.me.uk/ (and the espe-ranto at http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/ )
Re: The Development of the C Language (1993)
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
The things you mentioned aren't both microcontrollers, and they use C. Why continue to double down when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?
So are you taking back the original answer? Those are not my words.
No.
The things you mentioned aren't both microcontrollers, and they use C.
Why continue to double down when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?
Re: The Development of the C Language (1993)
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here, no problems with undefined behavior. Also, no memory issues either after done with code finalization using Valgrind.
“no memory issues in the tested state space”. That’s the only thing Valgrind can say. But it says nothing how a run with different input would behave, it just might segfault/leak/use after free/UB.
That is always the case in any platform. Just because something works on a Mac it will not necessarily work on a PC or vice-versa. If a language has multiple compilers, you also need to test in different compilers to make sure your code works there too. You're trying to make this as a C-only issue, when it is a general issue, maybe with different names.
Re: The Development of the C Language (1993)
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me an alternative which ticks all the checkboxes and I'll switch immediately. C++ isn't it because the committee has completely lost focus since ca C++11, Rust isn't it because they completely forgot about ergonomics, simplicity and elegance on their quest to fix memory safety (and both C++ and Rust suffer from "design by committee"). Zig looks perfect so far, but it's too early to switch over yet. Any other pro…
Ada. 83 or 95
my point is either of these versions are very complete and usable implementations. more recent is even better.