3 ms·
Yes, C's preprocessor is weak, but that's a quality of life thing, not a necessity by any stretch. And as for C not being low-level enough, that was my point -
by qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Yes, C's preprocessor is weak, but that's a quality of life thing, not a necessity by any stretch.
And as for C not being low-level enough, that was my point - C is as low level as you can be, before you become unportable.
- naasking 10y ago> And as for C not being low-level enough, that was my point - C is as low level as you can be, before you become unportable. I don't think that's true. You can add first-class support for bitdata [1], much better than C's bit flags and portable, better support for alignment declarations, better/safer support for absolute addresses, native SIMD-like vectors [2], exposing arithmetic carry flags, and more without losing portability. [1] http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/bitdata-icfp05.pdf http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/bitdata-icfp05.pdf [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoWell, now we know what to ask for in C17.