The lengths people will go to not use C++ is staggering.
Common libraries and data structures for C
21–30 of 148 posts
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#22I'm not a C developer, nor have I ever been interested in developing with it. From my perspective, it seems like a massive time drain and non-productive use of my time. Just a few points: - Tooling seems all over the place (build system, package management) - Having to roll your own trivial functions / types (tooling may play into this) - Versioning is confusing (C99, C11, ???) The only advantage I see would be in em…
C is supposely a language which it is reasonable to write a compiler for and in order to get a reasonable hardware ISA abstraction.
Don't worry, the ISO working groups are making sure that it won't last and soon writting a C compiler will become a nightmare like what they did for c++ (C23 is seriously scary).
Instead they should fix it: remove _Generic, typeof, etc which have nothing to do there, and make sure writting a C compiler does keep requiring only a reasonable amount of developement efforts (not an army of devs for 20 years like c++).
Actually, removing and hardening stuff would be more appropriate, namely not really adding stuff: remove typedef? harden and improve the type casting rules, let's be bold and eat the bullet, remove the implicit cast except to/from void* pointers and add static/dynamic casts (please not with the c++ syntax)? Make function pointers the same than the other pointers, finally (POSIX/GNU requires it though). Etc.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#23With apologies to Greenspun:
Any sufficiently complicated C program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of C++.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#24For people advocating use of C++ instead of C, keep in mind there are several platforms (mostly embedded) that only support C and not C++. Also there are many projects that make use of C only. If C++ is available, I agree one should use it, however that is not always the choice.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#25I'm not a C developer, nor have I ever been interested in developing with it. From my perspective, it seems like a massive time drain and non-productive use of my time. Just a few points: - Tooling seems all over the place (build system, package management) - Having to roll your own trivial functions / types (tooling may play into this) - Versioning is confusing (C99, C11, ???) The only advantage I see would be in em…
Bye bye C.
Bye bye ehhh. Linux, Windows, OS X, Postgres, Android, Python, Sqlite, Redis...
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#26I'm not a C developer, nor have I ever been interested in developing with it. From my perspective, it seems like a massive time drain and non-productive use of my time. Just a few points: - Tooling seems all over the place (build system, package management) - Having to roll your own trivial functions / types (tooling may play into this) - Versioning is confusing (C99, C11, ???) The only advantage I see would be in em…
C is supposely a language which it is reasonable to write a compiler for and in order to get a reasonable hardware ISA abstraction. Don't worry, the ISO working groups are making sure that it won't last and soon writting a C compiler will become a nightmare like what they did for c++ (C23 is seriously scary). Instead they should fix it: remove _Generic, typeof, etc which have nothing to do there, and make sure writti…
Keeping it simple to write a compiler is not a serious use case these days. People aren't bootstrapping new platforms from scratch. GCC and Clang are anything but simple.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#27The lengths people will go to not use C++ is staggering.
Yes, writing libraries and tools. The horror.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#28I work in C++ daily and there is something about the simple-ness of C that I love. You get out of magical hell that is templates and return to simple flat-functions and macros.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#29I'm not a C developer, nor have I ever been interested in developing with it. From my perspective, it seems like a massive time drain and non-productive use of my time. Just a few points: - Tooling seems all over the place (build system, package management) - Having to roll your own trivial functions / types (tooling may play into this) - Versioning is confusing (C99, C11, ???) The only advantage I see would be in em…
C is supposely a language which it is reasonable to write a compiler for and in order to get a reasonable hardware ISA abstraction. Don't worry, the ISO working groups are making sure that it won't last and soon writting a C compiler will become a nightmare like what they did for c++ (C23 is seriously scary). Instead they should fix it: remove _Generic, typeof, etc which have nothing to do there, and make sure writti…
I agree C23 is scary (1000+ new functions???), but your complaint seems a bit misplaced. For example `typeof` is a GNU extension, and removing `typedef` will instantly break virtually everything (which is not only used to remove `struct`/`union`/`enum` from the name). And a reasonable C compiler can only do a very limited amount of optimization, which precludes a majority of current C uses.
Re: Common libraries and data structures for C
#30Good stuff. void* in itself is great for generics. C does support a templating system, like C++, with a little (reasonable) preprocessor abuse. It gives great cache contiguous results: https://www.github.com/glouw/ctl
Probably best to disclose you're pitching your own baby to us. What do you feel this content adds in context of the article? I can't tell.
they're kind in the same category to me, good to know both and compare them.