Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New C Standard Is On the Way

Posted by samzenpus on from the new-guidelines dept.

Esther Schindler writes "Last year, Danny Kalev — a former member of the C++ standards committed — explained the new features in C++. Now, in C11: A New C Standard Aiming at Safer Programming, he shares an overview of the changes in C — 13 years after the ratification of the C99 standard. Kalev describes the goodies in C11, including multi-threading support, safer standard libraries, and better compliance with other industry standards."

16 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by mholve · · Score: 2, Funny

    No wonder they're not popular. C99? C11? It should be "C... X!" :p

  2. C11???? by highphilosopher · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's great! I'm still using C4, and every time I compile my code blows up!

    1. Re:C11???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plus, as using C-14, I am able to determine the compiling date of any given code.

    2. Re:C11???? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am still using the programming language made a long time ago C3PO. You'd be surprised how similar it is to Jawa.

      --
      God spoke to me
    3. Re:C11???? by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's really only useful for controlling 'vaporators and binary loadlifters.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:C11???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been using CB. All functions are called by the new "breaker.breaker" operator--and don't even get me started on the crazyvariable names you have to use...

    5. Re:C11???? by Sduic · · Score: 5, Funny

      The worst part was the C4 standard was prepared with SemTeX.

      --
      *this space intentionally left blank
      "One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
    6. Re:C11???? by dintech · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since I'm using C64, I find I have to be careful with my memory usage.

  3. Integer overflow! by Montreal · · Score: 5, Funny

    C99 -> C11, come on guys ...

  4. Jeezus christ by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I wanted plastic scissors I'd use Java. Give me my scalpel back.

    1. Re:Jeezus christ by arkane1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too many people have been randomly slicing people.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  5. Re:On the way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not on the way, it was released last year.

    C'mon, this is /. -- it's either a dupe or it's old news.

  6. Re:Drops the most important feature of C99 by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Funny

    Last I checked, VC++ team has plainly stated that they are simply not interested in working on vanilla C, so why would they care about what is and isn't in C11?

    Given that Microsoft's implementation of C++11 also sucks, exactly what is the VC++ team interested in working on?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. Re:On the way? by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Funny

    The "11" actually refers to how far you can turn up the volume.[1]

    [1] Quoted from Tough Love's Album of Unreliable Facts (c)

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  8. Re:On the way? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, you can turn the volume up as high as you want, but it's only defined for 0 to 10.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  9. Bah, Humbug! by RKBA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anything but the pure C as defined in the sacred Whitebook pollutes the simple beauty of C and obscures the language's clarity and its similarity to the instruction sets of most common CPUs.

    --
    9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2