Slashdot Mirror
ISO Updates C Standard
An anonymous reader writes "The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published the new specifications for the C programming language. The standard is known unofficially as C1X and was published officially as ISO/IEC 9899:2011. It provides greater compatibility with the C++ language and adds new features to C (as indicated in the draft)."
Actually, who cares about that?
Seriously, though, am I the only one who finds it strange that one has to buy copies of the standard?
Why would Dennis Ritchie have anything against it?
Currently, Microsoft Visual Studio does not even support the C99 standard. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that this standard will be widely adopted any time soon when Microsoft seems to be content to let standard C wither and die.
Many of us gave up waiting on Microsoft for our development tools.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I'm not willing to pony up 300 swiss Francs, so can anybody tell me, basically, how it is different ? Is it just the stuff that has creeped through in the last few years by means of gcc, or is it totally new ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
For those interested, the last draft before the official version is available for free here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf
Microsoft-designed "secure function" cancer?
I'm beginning to think we need a new "law" styled somewhat after Godwin's Law - let's call it "93 Escort Wagon's Law". It goes as follows:
"As any online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Microsoft in a derogatory manner approaches 1."
It might also make sense to add a "Slashdot Corollary" under which Microsoft and Apple are interchangeable.
#DeleteChrome
I put C90 (ANSI C) on my resume, because it is more marketable. A serious employer wants to know that I know how to write C90, not just vaguely understand the C language. The fact is if your write ANSI C, it will work with just about any compiler (with the exception of any platform specific code). Many embedded compilers only support a subset of C99 anyway (usually, most, but that's the point, it's not all). ISO fussing with a new C revision is laughable.
The problem is that with C90 you have to write more platform specific code. How do you handle 64-bit integers in C90, for example?
The standard is known unofficially as C1X
GCC already says:
A fourth version of the C standard, known as C11, was published in 2011 as ISO/IEC 9899:2011. GCC has limited incomplete support for parts of this standard, enabled with -std=c11 or -std=iso9899:2011. (While in development, drafts of this standard version were referred to as C1X.)
Syntax is everything in C.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/thetoolsweworkwith.html
You have that exactly backwards. It's C+++ that should die.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Declaring variables at the beginning of their scope
But do you really want to start a new scope every time you declare a variable? Then your code would be filled with so many }}}}}}}}} that it'd look like a curlier version of Lisp.
The free sample in alpha centauri is in a filing cabinet in a dark basement guarded by leopards.
Your time dilation assumes c towards Alpha Centauri, instant deceleration to 0, collect pdf and instant acceleration to c towards earth. Wont work.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I spent my early years programming K&R C on Unix systems.
When the ANSI standards were ratified, ANSI took over.
But WTF is "ISO C"? With a core language whose goal is portability and efficiency, why would I want the language trying to can platform-specific implementations like threading? C is not a general purpose language -- it's power comes from tying to the kernels and platform libraries of the industry at the lowest levels possible to maximize performance.
If you don't need that maximum performance, you use C++ or another high-level language.
ANSI C is the assembler of the modern computing age, not a general purpose programming language.
Now get off my lawn!
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but you sum up the problem with C++ well. It's exactly because Bjarne has forced any idea he remotely heard about into C++ standard that C++ is a complete incoherent mess of a language it is today.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Real mission critical stuff at Boeing? NASA? All that stuff then right?
Actually their most critical software is probably written in COBOL, their payroll software. Without that COBOL based software nothing gets done. :-)
No, no, no. That's not the issue. C++ can automatically call any C code using 'extern "C"'. The issue is, how will C++ do *COMPILING* C source in C++ mode. C++ is not a true superset of C, so C is not a true subset of C++. Anything that makes them closer to being a super/sub set pair is a Good Thing.
Why mess with that? If you want more than that, you go with C++. Which isn't too bad as long as you avoid template metaprogramming like the plague...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Fucking markup. Here's a version you can read.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int64_t a = 50000000000LL;
int64_t b = 100000000000LL;
int64_t c = 0;
c = a + b;
printf("%lld\n", c);
return 0;
}
Objective-C, of course.
Your time dilation assumes c towards Alpha Centauri, instant deceleration to 0, collect pdf and instant acceleration to c towards earth. Wont work.
Is that c 9x or c 1x? Must be 9x else you wouldn't be going to Alpha Centauri to get the new c spec.