4 ms·
Damn straight! That's why I exclusively use punch cards, for that good ol' reliability. Don't need no new fangled language crap! Sugar is for eating, not for sy
by kllrnohj 8y ago
Damn straight! That's why I exclusively use punch cards, for that good ol' reliability. Don't need no new fangled language crap! Sugar is for eating, not for syntax!
If you're actually stuck with C89 you have my sympathy, like all the people stuck still maintaining FORTRAN and COBOL. But that's obviously a niche case with extreme limitations, it doesn't really need to be brought up every time someone mentions C99. Or C++11 for that matter.
- johannes1234321 8y agoCOBOL and Fortran are indeed still wide used, however I claim there is way more C89 than those two together. The point about C89 is that this covers a large area - all common Unix/Linux APIs and libraries are at least C89 compatible, if not written using C8 and as the GP mentioned embedded often depends heavily on such compilers. Thus usage goes far across industries with new libraries being created each day. COBOL and Fortan are way more in their fields (legacy business and science respectively) where more and more logic is build around those old systems using newer languages.
- kllrnohj 8y agoC89 compatible but not written in C89, which is the point. And almost certainly just C89 compatible because C99 didn't change the ABI, so that happened "for free". But the actual source, the thing people actually write in, is not C89. Linux heavily leverages new language and compiler extensions. It doesn't handicap itself with only using C89, because that's just silly.