3 ms·
> but especially in the embedded and other niche industries, C89 (often with some extensions) is all you get. Embedded and niche industries are forcing their p
by deathanatos 8y ago
> but especially in the embedded and other niche industries, C89 (often with some extensions) is all you get.
Embedded and niche industries are forcing their programmers to work with 30 year old tooling? (Instead of 20 year tooling?)
I think at some point, writing yourself a transpiler from C99 to C89 becomes profitable… (The JS community did it for a lot less than that w/ babel…)
- Gibbon1 8y agoI remember reading a doc's for a library targeting ARM Cortex processors that crowed about it being C89 compatible. I pretty much spit on my keyboard. I also knew the code base was going to be kinda trashy and it was.
- userbinator 8y agoEmbedded and niche industries are forcing their programmers to work with 30 year old tooling? (Instead of 20 year tooling?) Why does how old it is mean anything at all? I personally choose C89 because of its wider compatibility, and I don't think I'm any worse off because of it. As the saying goes, "it's not about the tool, but how you use it." Incidentally, the best programmers I've worked with have also been the ones with the most conservative choice of tools. I think at some point, writing yourself a transpiler from C99 to C89 becomes profitable… (The JS community did it for a lot less than that w/ babel…) If anything, I think the JS community could learn a lot from the "C community" (a very loosely defined term...) --- the huge amount of churn with anything related to JS and web stuff in general turns me off.