Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

C

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 17:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 17:23

That's no news. Next.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 17:27

The reason for identifiers like _Atomic, _Noreturn, ... is to avoid code collision, just like _Bool, this person doesn't know C very well.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 17:47

>>1
No, C1X is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 17:58

>>4
The author of that retarded blog is shit, he doesn't understand why there are things such as undefined behavior and code collision.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 19:18

>>5
Okay

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 19:43

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?

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 20:21

Back to /newsyc50/, please.

Name: sage 2011-12-20 21:43

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

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 23:04

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.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-20 23:38

>>10
nice description, deserves a bump

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 2:15

>>11
Only if all you know is python you learned on the web.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 9:58

fuck you, X-Scale!

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:02

>>10
If it's Connection Machine, Standard C will fail.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:31


Lisp   | C/C++
-------|-----------------------------------------------------
format | printf fprintf sprintf snprintf vsprintf vfprintf vsprintf vsnprint
       | asprintf vasprintf dprintf vdprintf wprintf putchar fputchar putwchar
       | putc fputc fputwc puts fputs fputws write fwrite
       | ostream ofstream streambuf streingstream ostringstream stringbuf
       | fstream filebuf ios ios_base cout cerr std clog << endl ends hex oct
       | boolalpha dec flush internal setw noboolalpha noshowbase noshowpos left
       | right resetiosflags scientific setbase setfill setiosflags setprecision
       | showbase showpoint showpos skipws unitbuf nouppercase uppercase ws

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:35

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: Anonymous 2011-12-21 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: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:39

>>17
I've seen both, cout<< and printf, used in the same code.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:40

>>3
this person doesn't know C very well


lol @ this guy doesn't know C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poul-Henning_Kamp

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:41

>>18
So? They are still two different things.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:43

>>20
C/C++: you can print on screen using over 9000 different things.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:43

>>17
Did you just write I/0 instead of I/O?

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:44

>>10
C was designed to implement UNIX.

Name: matth@eecs.berkeley.edu !!8TAzbhVOfn9F0d0 2011-12-21 10:46

>>21
Huh? Go scrub another toilet you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:47

>>24

i was waiting for the toilet scrubbing line and was validated and now i can cum

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:48

>>23
Unix was designed to run video game.

Name: matth@eecs.berkeley.edy !!8TAzbhVOfn9F0d0 2011-12-21 10:50

>>25
It still won't change the fact that you're a clueless stupid shit that has no possible future as a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:52

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:54

>>26
C was designed to run video games on outdated hardware? Suddently, everything makes sense.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:55

>>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?

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 10:58

Name: matth@eecs.berkeley.edu !!8TAzbhVOfn9F0d0 2011-12-21 11:01

>>30
I did it just to get a rise out of you. Did it work?

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-21 11:03

>>32
No but you made me curious. Seems like a thing a good programmer would automate.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List