7 ms·

> I actually started using C for my side projects since two years precisely because I want very long term backward compatibility (that is, being able to leave a

> I actually started using C for my side projects since two years precisely because I want very long term backward compatibility (that is, being able to leave a program for years without maintaining it, then make a small edit in it and build it with minimum pain). Rust actually takes a very strong stance on maintaining backwards compatibility, and Go's stance is arguably even stronger in most cases. You're implying incorrectly that these languages are just breaking things left and right for no reason other than "innovation!", which isn't true. The overwhelming majority of Rust and Go code from years ago will compile without problems today. Any code from post-1.0 that doesn't compile today was (inadvertently) relying on buggy, incorrect behaviors that have since been fixed... and even then, not all incorrect behaviors get fixed because compatibility is considered so important. C is fine for certain applications, but no one should choose it for side projects based on some notion of backwards compatibility, in my opinion. If some company is building a business application that needs "backwards compatibility" in the sense that it can run on all sorts of arcane microarchitectures and operating systems, then sure... C is still a really painful* choice, but it might be the right choice then, or if there's an existing C code base, then it probably doesn't make business sense to rewrite it any time soon. * yes, having no protection from footguns, no real standard library, no built-in concept of asynchronous code, and very little of anything useful is definitely painful. If C is the only valid choice for a project, then it's the only valid choice, and that's what you have to do. The number of projects where you simply can't use something other than C is diminishing by the day.

jki275 6y ago
Rust and Go haven't been around long enough to make those statements about them.
- virtue3 6y ago
  That and, while "backwards compatability" has been quoted as important things in these languages. I can attest to rust having issues with what is "idiomatic" rust: https://timidger.github.io/posts/i-cant-keep-up-with-idiomatic-rust/ https://timidger.github.io/posts/i-cant-keep-up-with-idiomat... there are other similar complaints around the net. While the C and C++ code I wrote over 2 decades ago is now finally "out of date" as of 5 years ago. It took a while. Not 2-3 years. Which is absolutely attributed to the language being new, not a design fault. C is already "settled"
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    It seems idiomatic C++ is recently changing much faster than before, as C++ feels the need to keep pace with competing languages. But you don't have to keep up with what's idiomatic.
    - guenthert 6y ago
      It can cause friction though, if new programmers work on old code or new and seasoned programmers work on the same project. Of those who do like Common Lisp, many like it because the standard hasn't changed in nearly thirty years (while simultaneously offering features added to the C++ standard just very recently, e.g. a filesystem path abstraction).
  - jki275 6y ago
    I'm learning Rust now, I don't have anything particularly against it other than the obvious, big static binaries and such, and maybe those will be fixed eventually. I've been able to compile and run C and C++ code from 20 years ago a truly amazing number of times. It's really surprising at how easy it is to work with well written code even if it's decades old. Will Rust and Go age that way? Maybe. Too soon to tell.
    - rational_indian 6y ago
      >I've been able to compile and run C and C++ code from 20 years ago a truly amazing number of times. It's really surprising at how easy it is to work with well written code even if it's decades old. Not if you have used any third party libraries. Dependency management is a nightmare in these languages.
      - jki275 6y ago
        Not if the project is written well. Yes, dependency hell is a thing, but there are ways to deal with it and make good code. Autotools will straight up tell you version x.x.x of library y is required, and as long as that's available, the problem is solved. Dependency hell is a thing in other languages too -- try to compile a really old Java project sometime. I spend most of my time working deep in the internals of some things that are 10+ years old running even older versions of some highly (and often badly) modified linux kernels. The well written C/C++ projects definitely stand out.

jki275 6y ago

Rust and Go haven't been around long enough to make those statements about them.

virtue3 6y ago
That and, while "backwards compatability" has been quoted as important things in these languages. I can attest to rust having issues with what is "idiomatic" rust: https://timidger.github.io/posts/i-cant-keep-up-with-idiomatic-rust/ https://timidger.github.io/posts/i-cant-keep-up-with-idiomat... there are other similar complaints around the net. While the C and C++ code I wrote over 2 decades ago is now finally "out of date" as of 5 years ago. It took a while. Not 2-3 years. Which is absolutely attributed to the language being new, not a design fault. C is already "settled"
- im3w1l 6y ago
  It seems idiomatic C++ is recently changing much faster than before, as C++ feels the need to keep pace with competing languages. But you don't have to keep up with what's idiomatic.
  - guenthert 6y ago
    It can cause friction though, if new programmers work on old code or new and seasoned programmers work on the same project. Of those who do like Common Lisp, many like it because the standard hasn't changed in nearly thirty years (while simultaneously offering features added to the C++ standard just very recently, e.g. a filesystem path abstraction).
- jki275 6y ago
  I'm learning Rust now, I don't have anything particularly against it other than the obvious, big static binaries and such, and maybe those will be fixed eventually. I've been able to compile and run C and C++ code from 20 years ago a truly amazing number of times. It's really surprising at how easy it is to work with well written code even if it's decades old. Will Rust and Go age that way? Maybe. Too soon to tell.
  - rational_indian 6y ago
    >I've been able to compile and run C and C++ code from 20 years ago a truly amazing number of times. It's really surprising at how easy it is to work with well written code even if it's decades old. Not if you have used any third party libraries. Dependency management is a nightmare in these languages.
    - jki275 6y ago
      Not if the project is written well. Yes, dependency hell is a thing, but there are ways to deal with it and make good code. Autotools will straight up tell you version x.x.x of library y is required, and as long as that's available, the problem is solved. Dependency hell is a thing in other languages too -- try to compile a really old Java project sometime. I spend most of my time working deep in the internals of some things that are 10+ years old running even older versions of some highly (and often badly) modified linux kernels. The well written C/C++ projects definitely stand out.