Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

Make no mistake: no matter what programmers tell you or what people whisper in your ear, the behavior of C’s governing body is very clear. We will not introduce warnings into your old code, even if that old code could be doing something dangerous. We will not steer you away from mistakes, because that could shake the veneer that what your old code does is, in fact, wrong. We will not make it easier for new programmers to write better C code. We will not demand that your old code is held to any Standard. Every new feature we add we will make optional, because we cannot possibly imagine holding compiler writers to a higher standard nor expect more out of our Standard Library vendors.

> Make no mistake: no matter what programmers tell you or what people whisper in your ear, the behavior of C’s governing body is very clear. We will not introduce warnings into your old code, even if that old code could be doing something dangerous. We will not steer you away from mistakes, because that could shake the veneer that what your old code does is, in fact, wrong. We will not make it easier for new programmers to write better C code. We will not demand that your old code is held to any Standard. Every new feature we add we will make optional, because we cannot possibly imagine holding compiler writers to a higher standard nor expect more out of our Standard Library vendors.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts (edited )

In the midst of upper-level script kiddies, monty pythoners and unnecessarily bloated webpages, of course these morons are screaming about no safety nets. Its about as dumb as demanding assemblers to protect code against page memory leaks. C is an early compiler that can also take assembly for when and "if" there needs to be optimizations at low level (i'm talking about the fast inverse square root famously known about). In order to do that there cannot be these safety nets. Maybe I wanted to increment my pointer outside of an array and into another array because I have limited resources? C is not high level and does not need this safety crap. True hackers know how a system works, these 3rd world shithole software companies over-promise on shit and rely on a fuck-ton of Over-the-Air updates if their shit code doesn't work. Gone are the days where software was carefully validated because there were no updates, it just had to work.

That author is a nigger.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

C is 50 years old and it is possible to do a lot better while still enabling (and even making easier) high-performance code.

But the way to do that is in a new language, not by fucking with C. And shitheads like the author of this article wouldn't even know where to start. The problem is that language development in general is infested with this type of person.

[–] • 4 pts

A language mus tbe effective in describing what you wish to do

Like any natural language, you say garbled stuff, you get garbled result

we all live with this

not all people can do programming, if you need a sandpen to play then get out of the way

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

I've been hacking code and hardware since the late 70s.

The problem is not C, it's the expectation of being able to write code without understanding how your solution engages with the machine.

You used to have to understand what the machine was doing to make code happen. Now you do not.

Or I could be a crusty old bastard. YMMV

[–] • 1 pt

I used to know Gary Kildall, the inventor of "C" language, he was a very cool, nice guy.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt