What do you want in the next C standard? For me it's namespaces, damn they make libraries simple.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 18:02
>>40
Why? in strncpy the n is for the source, not protecting the destination buffer
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 18:05
>>41
The question is, why the fuck you have to provide TWO length argument, when one would be enough? If your buffer is not smaller than needed, it's no different than regular strncpy. If the buffer is smaller, your code is fucked up anyway.
polymorphism, tuples and pattern matching for it, well integrated support for parallellism via message passing and syntax for it, etc. Just fucking bring back alef and I'm pleased.
You people are fucking nuts. The whole point of C these days is the simple export model to interface with other programs. If I create a function call "FuckOff" then in the executable/library it will be called "FuckOff". Doesn't anyone here no what name-mangling is? It's the reason you can't call C++ functions like C functions from other languages, because instead of being called "FuckOff" it's now "%$&&%%$FuckOff#@$@#%@#$%SomeBullshit".
Leave C alone and implement this shit in other languages like C++ or D, that's what they're for. Also, fuck off.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 22:18
To the people who said function overloading, namespaces, templates, containers, higher order functions, garbage collection, coroutines, I say: STFU. It's C. Don't try to turn C into C++ or worse. If you want namespaces, templates, and containers, just write C++... it supports all of those things, right now. If you don't like the overhead of exceptions then turn them off. What makes C useful is that it's good at its niche: systems programming, and writing low level code such as codecs. It's also a great target language for compilers... there are compilers for Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, Objective-C, C++, and more that all target C because C is so light-weight it's practically assembly. Lots of interpreters are written in C: Python, Ruby, Lua, and Perl come to mind. None of these would really benefit from the cruft listed above.
To the person who said closures: Yeah, I'd like that too. Apple did it, looks like it made it into clang and probably will come to GCC too.
My #1 wish for C1X is support for UTF-16 string literals. And guess what? I got my wish. (I read the C1X draft... u"some string" is UTF-16, U"some string" is UTF-32. sweet.)
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 22:28
>>52
I don't get this. Why UTF-32? You're basically wasting 3 bytes per character. Anything UTF-32 can do, UTF-8 can do in less space.
>>52 My #1 wish for C1X is support for UTF-16 string literals.
Agreed until this. This is kindof insane. What i18n strings are you putting in *source code*? UTF-16 string literals belong in C less than anything else in your entire list.
but it's probably going to be a long time before there are any c1x compilers... just look at how long it took for c99. and last time i checked (about 3 months ago) i could only find 2, both closed-source, and one of them costs money.
>>40
It's like MS decided to just add byte counts to every single char* parameter, ignoring the fact that many of the existing functions ALREADY have one.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-11 7:46
>>31
This is why they need to add to the standard library. Instead of adding complex numbers and shit like that.
>>58
A non-free C compiler? wtf is it called and does anybody bother?
One of the distinguishing characteristics of Go is its unusual type system. It eschews some typical object-oriented programming concepts such as inheritance. You can define struct types and then create methods for operating on them. You can also define interfaces, much like you can in Java. In Go, however, you don't manually specify which interface a class implements. Pike explained to me that the interface mechanism gives developers some of the flexibility of duck-typing, but it goes further by providing the advantages of compile-time checking.
One day earlier...
>>6 Kind of. I'd be perfectly happy with classes but no inheritance whatsoever. Or maybe completely statically resolved inheritance only.
>>52
That's still bullshit and you know it. Unicode is a huge pain to support in See/Sepples. You have to do a bunch of macro hacks and the like or just plain have an unmaintainable amount of mixing within the code.
Real support for UNICODE would be nice. Something like #define UNICODE 0, 8, 16, 32 or whatever.
>>52 My #1 wish for C1X is support for UTF-16 string literals. And guess what? I got my wish. (I read the C1X draft... u"some string" is UTF-16, U"some string" is UTF-32. sweet.)
Fucking ew. Didn't we already have L""? What was so wrong with that?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-11 12:22
A non-free C compiler? wtf is it called and does anybody bother?
well, there's sun studio, which is free as in beer, but closed source: http://developers.sun.com/sunstudio/documentation/ss12u1/mr/READMEs/c.html This compiler is in full compliance with ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming Language - C and is available on Solaris platforms when you compile with the -xc99 option. This compiler supports all C language features of ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming Language - C on all supported operating systems.
and then there's this thing: http://www.edg.com/index.php?location=c_lang The front end accepts the C++ language as defined by the ISO/IEC 14882:2003 standard. It also accepts the C language as defined by the ISO/IEC 9899:1990 ("C89") and ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("C99") standards and the "Embedded C" extensions of ISO/IEC TR 18037. http://www.edg.com/index.php?location=faq_q2_cost So how much do you charge for a single copy for Windows?
Sorry, we don't sell end-user products. We only license source code, which probably costs more than you're looking to spend if all you need is a single end-user copy.
How much does a source code license cost?
Usually somewhere between $40,000 and $250,000. There are lots of different kinds of licenses, so you'll have to contact us to get a specific quote.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-11 13:22
>>67
Why would someone want to pay for the EDG thing? Is there something wrong with using GCC for commercial products?
Name:
EFF2009-11-11 13:34
>>68 using GCC for commercial products
*grabs dick*
>>68
Probably why there's many other commercial implementations for various languages: support, bug fixes, payed feature requests, strict compliance with standards, better code quality than gcc...
>>71
I do know x86 asm pretty well, and I hate looking at gcc's code. >>72
You could say GCC has the most supported platforms and average code quality through-out, but on most popular platforms you tend to find better compilers for them.
>>74
You're probably right if you phrase it that way, since x86 asm gets extended so much every few years, and is quite a big mess overall, but my point was that I've been using it for many years and I may not know SSSE3 instructions that well, or know the ins and outs of VT-x, but you don't need those for general purpose x86 asm coding, and it's not hard to look them up in the Intel manuals when you need to use them.
>>76
On platforms where it works well, it's just about average, things I personally dislike are: sometimes it generates fairly bloated code, other times it makes optimizations which are unnecessary and make the code both slower and harder to read(for someone that wants obfuscated code, that might not be such a bad idea after all), while some other compilers generate both fast and straightforward code. However, there's much worse compilers than GCC, so for all intents and purposes, GCC is the most universal compiler out there, since it supports just about everything, but you should always look for alternatives if your platform is one with other compilers.