4 ms·
And then retroactively declare that code broken and not conforming. Good times!
by jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
And then retroactively declare that code broken and not conforming. Good times!
- jabl 6y agoIn defense of whoever was involved in the C89 process, I think they had an impossible task. At the same time they wanted to standardize the "portable macro-assembler" as well as allowing optimizations. With such constraints they could not but fail. With hindsight, maybe K&R should have consulted with PL experts and researchers and designed a "proper" language with a better emphasis on soundness and safety. I'm not saying they could have invented something like Rust back in the 1970'ies, but even then the state of the art was far ahead of K&R C.