4 ms·

And yet, it clearly does (work). When it doesn't (work), it is NOT because of a failure in the language; It is because C has (and always will have) the "basic

And yet, it clearly does (work). When it doesn't (work), it is NOT because of a failure in the language; It is because C has (and always will have) the "basic philosophy that programmers know what they are doing;". Criticising C, is like criticising assembly. What's the point? If people want to criticise a programming language, then they should always start with C++, not C. C++ was designed to allow us to develop bigger and more complex programs, and yet, C++ inherited from C? How stupid was that! But people are happy to give out various awards and medals to the person who made one of the dumbest decisions ever made, in the whole history of computing! Leave C alone. It's fine. It's C++ that is the problem.

auslander 8y ago
Were OpenBSD people wrong, making strlcat and strlcpy ? Honest question.
- grrrrrrrrrrrrr 8y ago
  That is a library issue. Trying to make C 'foolproof' however, is an excercise in futility, and in any case, can only come about by morphing it into a fundamentally different language. An argument in this thread, is that you shouldn't be able to pass an array without the argument being passed having some implicit 'size' element associated with it. That is NOT C. Conflating pointers with arrays, that is C. Again I feel the need to quote this: "C retains the basic philosophy that programmers know what they are doing; it only requires that they state their intentions explicitly." If you don't know what you're doing, don't use C. C should be considered a 'specialist' language - much like doing brain surgery - if you're doing it, you better know what you're doing, else go be a GP or something. And, if you're project doesn't absolutely require that you use C, don't use it. Instead, use something that is more 'foolproof'. (and I don't mean C++!!!) D should focus less on being a better C, and more on being a replacement for C++. Then, I might take D more seriously. No attempt to morph C (i.e. the language, not the library) into something else will ever succeed. Leave C alone!

auslander 8y ago

Were OpenBSD people wrong, making strlcat and strlcpy ? Honest question.

grrrrrrrrrrrrr 8y ago
That is a library issue. Trying to make C 'foolproof' however, is an excercise in futility, and in any case, can only come about by morphing it into a fundamentally different language. An argument in this thread, is that you shouldn't be able to pass an array without the argument being passed having some implicit 'size' element associated with it. That is NOT C. Conflating pointers with arrays, that is C. Again I feel the need to quote this: "C retains the basic philosophy that programmers know what they are doing; it only requires that they state their intentions explicitly." If you don't know what you're doing, don't use C. C should be considered a 'specialist' language - much like doing brain surgery - if you're doing it, you better know what you're doing, else go be a GP or something. And, if you're project doesn't absolutely require that you use C, don't use it. Instead, use something that is more 'foolproof'. (and I don't mean C++!!!) D should focus less on being a better C, and more on being a replacement for C++. Then, I might take D more seriously. No attempt to morph C (i.e. the language, not the library) into something else will ever succeed. Leave C alone!