Criticize C.

Please, I'd like to hear what /prog/ thinks is silly about C.

>>9
I disagree to some things you said. For example, there is no point in using loose guarantees regarding the sizes of integer types instead of defining their exact sizes/ranges.

I wish I had a guarantee about the exact size of an int whenever I use one, instead of just knowing that it is ``required to be at least 16 bits long''.

And what if the int in question is actually 64 bits wide? I may either write non-portable code that relies on this, or portable code that ignores it and wastes lots of memory.

If you adhere to a strict interpretation of the C standard, the high-order bits of any integer type that is assigned a size larger than that which the standard requires are mostly unusable (unless you use lots of undesirable #ifs and #defines). There is no guarantee that this high-order portion even exists, and thus there's no way of knowing the point up to which I may use that int.

Sorry, I had to get this off my chest. Also, cocks.