4 ms·

It's a bit disappointing C seems to be getting left behind in some areas. It's simpler to compile, which in theory should mean that it's more portable.

by uxcn 11y ago

pjmlp 11y ago
No it is not. http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_21.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... Many equate "C == what my compiler does", but just like any standardized technology with holes open to implementers to decide upon, portability isn't as people think.
- uxcn 11y ago
  I read Chris Lattner's posts. There are definitely things the standards don't specify that people take for granted (twos-complement for example). C is still an order of magnitude easier to parse than C++ though (especially modern). In theory, implementing and maintaining a compiler for it for a platform should be simpler. Implementing an effective compiler is another concern entirely, but I would still argue that there tend to be more incompatibilities between C++ implementations than C.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Yes, parsing is way harder because C++ requires the context aware grammar. However many C++ incompatibilities are actually caused by C compatibility and the goal of having higher constructs that are copy paste compatible with C but with additional semantics, e.g. structs. So in both cases, to achieve your portability goal the languages would have to be fully specified.
    - uxcn 11y ago
      C and C++ are admittedly different languages, but I would think more than less of the code for compiling both languages should be the same. I personally can't see how one language would impede the other. As a C/C++ user, I'm honestly still not sure why a number of C features have yet to be formalized in C++ (e.g. restrict).
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

It's a bit disappointing C seems to be getting left behind in some areas. It's simpler to compile, which in theory should mean that it's more portable.

by uxcn 11y ago

It's a bit disappointing C seems to be getting left behind in some areas. It's simpler to compile, which in theory should mean that it's more portable.

pjmlp 11y ago

No it is not. http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_21.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... Many equate "C == what my compiler does", but just like any standardized technology with holes open to implementers to decide upon, portability isn't as people think.

uxcn 11y ago
I read Chris Lattner's posts. There are definitely things the standards don't specify that people take for granted (twos-complement for example). C is still an order of magnitude easier to parse than C++ though (especially modern). In theory, implementing and maintaining a compiler for it for a platform should be simpler. Implementing an effective compiler is another concern entirely, but I would still argue that there tend to be more incompatibilities between C++ implementations than C.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Yes, parsing is way harder because C++ requires the context aware grammar. However many C++ incompatibilities are actually caused by C compatibility and the goal of having higher constructs that are copy paste compatible with C but with additional semantics, e.g. structs. So in both cases, to achieve your portability goal the languages would have to be fully specified.
  - uxcn 11y ago
    C and C++ are admittedly different languages, but I would think more than less of the code for compiling both languages should be the same. I personally can't see how one language would impede the other. As a C/C++ user, I'm honestly still not sure why a number of C features have yet to be formalized in C++ (e.g. restrict).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]