5 ms·

This clarifies the need for a more "rust-like" C. I hope something like this will flow into standard C...

valarauca1 10y ago
I wouldn't bet on it. Every safety feature added to the standard since C99 has been quietly dropped by compiler maintainers. People could write safe code in the 70's. The point of C was to write high level (kinda portable) assembly. Not safety.
- vardump 10y ago
  > Every safety feature added to the standard since C99 has been quietly dropped by compiler maintainers. Can you give one example of this, please?
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    Bounds checking interfaces in C99 Support: GCC: Nope, why? Performance concerns MSVC: Nope, why? Performance concerns Clang/LLVM: Nope, why? Performance concerns. [1] [1] LLVM has the op-codes to implement this, but Clang won't emit those op-codes with the c99 switch triggered.
    - vardump 10y ago
      > Bounds checking interfaces in C99 ... are an optional part of C standard library. C11 Annex K. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm So just use a library for those and you get support in every compiler! > MSVC: Nope, why? Performance concerns MSVC runtime library does support an early version of that. Has supported for over 10 years. They contributed it to the standard, I think. Example, sprintf_s, present in MSVC2005: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ce3zzk1k(v=vs.80).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ce3zzk1k(v=vs.80).a... Anything else?
yitchelle 10y ago
I can't upvote this enough. I started to play with Rust a few months ago and I especially like their compile-time checks of the code. I don't see why C compiler vendors can't do the same thing. Imagine if folks like GreenHills or WindRiver adopt such a practice in their compiler. It would revolutionise their industry. IAR has MISRA-C checks in their compilers but that is not enough.
- jotux 10y ago
  There's already an industry providing static analyzers for C (Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace, etc). If you're doing mission-critical C you're probably using these already.
  - yitchelle 10y ago
    I do, but I wish it was built in, like rustc.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  Because the C language is fundamentally hostile to Rust's safety features.
  - choosername 10y ago
    what about fail quick fail often
  - choosername 10y ago
    what about fail quick fail often

I wouldn't bet on it. Every safety feature added to the standard since C99 has been quietly dropped by compiler maintainers. People could write safe code in the 70's. The point of C was to write high level (kinda portable) assembly. Not safety.

vardump 10y ago
> Every safety feature added to the standard since C99 has been quietly dropped by compiler maintainers. Can you give one example of this, please?
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Bounds checking interfaces in C99 Support: GCC: Nope, why? Performance concerns MSVC: Nope, why? Performance concerns Clang/LLVM: Nope, why? Performance concerns. [1] [1] LLVM has the op-codes to implement this, but Clang won't emit those op-codes with the c99 switch triggered.
  - vardump 10y ago
    > Bounds checking interfaces in C99 ... are an optional part of C standard library. C11 Annex K. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm So just use a library for those and you get support in every compiler! > MSVC: Nope, why? Performance concerns MSVC runtime library does support an early version of that. Has supported for over 10 years. They contributed it to the standard, I think. Example, sprintf_s, present in MSVC2005: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ce3zzk1k(v=vs.80).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ce3zzk1k(v=vs.80).a... Anything else?

yitchelle 10y ago

I can't upvote this enough. I started to play with Rust a few months ago and I especially like their compile-time checks of the code. I don't see why C compiler vendors can't do the same thing. Imagine if folks like GreenHills or WindRiver adopt such a practice in their compiler. It would revolutionise their industry. IAR has MISRA-C checks in their compilers but that is not enough.

jotux 10y ago
There's already an industry providing static analyzers for C (Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace, etc). If you're doing mission-critical C you're probably using these already.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  I do, but I wish it was built in, like rustc.
pcwalton 10y ago
Because the C language is fundamentally hostile to Rust's safety features.
- choosername 10y ago
  what about fail quick fail often
- choosername 10y ago
  what about fail quick fail often