Heck, even a simple basic object facility would be good addition, now that C++ have become this huge bloated monster language.
When was it ever not a huge bloated monster?
The C language was invented as a portable assembler language, it doesn't do objects and garbage-collection it doesn't do objects and garbage-collection GC IS SHIT
C is designed to be portable. Portable doesn't mean "runs on Windows and Linux" or "runs on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same architecture." It means it can run on everything: nearly any conceivable binary CPU past, present, and future. If the machine uses 609-bit tagged pointers and 21-bit bytes, Standard C programs would still work. If integers are mixed-endian sign-magnitude with padding bits and floats are not IEEE (or IEEE decimal), Standard C programs would still work. If it's a stack machine (e.g. the JVM, Forth or Lisp Machines), Standard C programs would still work. If it's a 12-bit Harvard architecture or a 36-bit PDP-10, Standard C programs would still work. This is the main reason why C has so much undefined behavior and a minimal standard library.
In Unix, memory allocated in a C program is released when the process terminates, but in some single-tasking embedded OSes or OSes with a single address space for all threads, dynamic memory must be freed manually or it will not be reclaimed until a reboot, and in a Lisp Machine or JVM implementation, the memory may be automatically garbage-collected and free() might just give a hint to the garbage collector.
In Unix, memory allocated in a C program is released when the process terminates,
That's kind of vague since there are different types of process's in *nix. If you have a single process, then yes, that is true. But what happens if its a daemon? Exactly.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-21 10:38
>>15
Dear minimum wage mental midget, I/0 in C isn't the same as C++. The fact that you think they are implies that you still have no possible future as a computer programmer.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-21 10:39
>>17
I've seen both, cout<< and printf, used in the same code.
>>19
It just surprised me that he thought that this committee introduced something new with _Atomic, ... => <stdatomic.h>, ... as _Bool => <stdbool.h> has been in the language since C99. Not only didn't he know that, he thought it was a decision based on what made pretty code or not, he actually thought that they chose to used _Noreturn because they thought it looked pretty, and that they later on added <stdnoreturn.h> because they thought noreturn looked even better, seems to me that he's just oblivious to reserved identifiers.
I don't care who you are or how much code you have written in a language, if you don't know the basics of the language I'm going to say that you don't know it very well.
>>24 Name: matth@eecs.berkeley.edu >>27 Name: matth@eecs.berkeley.edy
Do you seriously write your name every time you post, isn't that terribly inefficient?