5 ms·

I strongly disagree. C should is adding langauge features at a pace other languages could stand to emulate. C is stable, trusted, and supported everywhere for t

I strongly disagree. C should is adding langauge features at a pace other languages could stand to emulate. C is stable, trusted, and supported everywhere for this very reason. Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so.

news_to_me 8y ago
> Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so. Poppycock. Codebases should use any and all tools available to them to accomplish their goals, given the tradeoffs. Using non-standard language extensions is a tradeoff, and if it suits the Linux community and their goals, there's nothing wrong with that.
- ddingus 8y ago
  That is one way non-standard extensions become standard.
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    For example, the [[maybe_unused]] and similar annotations in C++17 grew out of gcc builtins.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Of course, C++ is much more aggressive in stealing popular features from the community, especially Boost.
      - bstamour 8y ago
        Boost came about from a few members of the ISO C++ committee as a way to iterate on library features. It would be a shame if none of that work made it's way back into the standard.
      - jcelerier 8y ago
        Boost was created as a place to beta-test future C++ features. Its whole point is to move stuff from boost:: to std::
ndesaulniers 8y ago
> C should is adding langauge features at a pace other languages could stand to emulate. Remember the Vasa! ;) > C is stable, trusted, and supported everywhere for this very reason. See the sibling comment about C not being fully supported everywhere. As long as people continue to make proprietary compilers, there will be implementation deficiencies. That's orthogonal to the language itself. > Codebases should not be using extensions, Agree and disagree. Maybe "codebases should only use extensions when it's feasible to provide fallbacks" or something. > and Linux is wrong to do so. I'm not sure I agree. There are some worthwhile extensions IMO, which is why I made the point earlier that I think it's time to standardize them.
module0000 8y ago
>> Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so. Why? If you can improve the performance/security/stability of Linux by re-writing functionality without extensions, by all means do so(and send in a patch). Why is Linux "wrong" for this?
Conan_Kudo 8y ago
The problem with not allowing language extensions to be used is that it promotes the staleness of the language. Just as human languages evolve as people use and adjust it, programming languages evolve as people start trying to change it to better suit their needs. The difference with human languages and programming ones is that there's a relatively easy process to get everyone in sync on how it changes for programming languages. :) I also agree with the grandparent comment that more features should be specified and incorporated into the C standard. The fact they exist and are in wide use says a lot all by itself.
- VHRanger 8y ago
  C is used more as an API than a language.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
  This is the fundamental problem with languages that don’t have a good story for user-written compiler extensions: either they don’t adapt to new use cases or the standard gets horribly bloated or else, like Haskell, one implementation becomes the de facto standard.

news_to_me 8y ago

> Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so. Poppycock. Codebases should use any and all tools available to them to accomplish their goals, given the tradeoffs. Using non-standard language extensions is a tradeoff, and if it suits the Linux community and their goals, there's nothing wrong with that.

ddingus 8y ago
That is one way non-standard extensions become standard.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  For example, the [[maybe_unused]] and similar annotations in C++17 grew out of gcc builtins.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Of course, C++ is much more aggressive in stealing popular features from the community, especially Boost.
    - bstamour 8y ago
      Boost came about from a few members of the ISO C++ committee as a way to iterate on library features. It would be a shame if none of that work made it's way back into the standard.
    - jcelerier 8y ago
      Boost was created as a place to beta-test future C++ features. Its whole point is to move stuff from boost:: to std::

ndesaulniers 8y ago

> C should is adding langauge features at a pace other languages could stand to emulate. Remember the Vasa! ;) > C is stable, trusted, and supported everywhere for this very reason. See the sibling comment about C not being fully supported everywhere. As long as people continue to make proprietary compilers, there will be implementation deficiencies. That's orthogonal to the language itself. > Codebases should not be using extensions, Agree and disagree. Maybe "codebases should only use extensions when it's feasible to provide fallbacks" or something. > and Linux is wrong to do so. I'm not sure I agree. There are some worthwhile extensions IMO, which is why I made the point earlier that I think it's time to standardize them.

module0000 8y ago

>> Codebases should not be using extensions, and Linux is wrong to do so. Why? If you can improve the performance/security/stability of Linux by re-writing functionality without extensions, by all means do so(and send in a patch). Why is Linux "wrong" for this?

Conan_Kudo 8y ago

The problem with not allowing language extensions to be used is that it promotes the staleness of the language. Just as human languages evolve as people use and adjust it, programming languages evolve as people start trying to change it to better suit their needs. The difference with human languages and programming ones is that there's a relatively easy process to get everyone in sync on how it changes for programming languages. :) I also agree with the grandparent comment that more features should be specified and incorporated into the C standard. The fact they exist and are in wide use says a lot all by itself.

VHRanger 8y ago
C is used more as an API than a language.
fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
This is the fundamental problem with languages that don’t have a good story for user-written compiler extensions: either they don’t adapt to new use cases or the standard gets horribly bloated or else, like Haskell, one implementation becomes the de facto standard.