3 ms·
What’s wrong with a bigger standard library? If you dynamically link, it makes no difference, and if you statically link, any decent linker won’t bring in what
by colejohnson66 6y ago
What’s wrong with a bigger standard library? If you dynamically link, it makes no difference, and if you statically link, any decent linker won’t bring in what you don’t use (so it also makes no difference).
Also, why can’t C have safe stuff? Because it’s always been possible to shoot yourself in the foot, we shouldn’t try to change that?
- pjmlp 6y agoMentality, among the C community there is a deep belief that only bad programmers, that shouldn't be using C to start with, write unsafe code, despite 50 years of proofs.
- josefx 6y ago> What’s wrong with a bigger standard library? Maintainer time mostly and for some uses bloat. > If you dynamically link, it makes no difference I had projects that were limited by the time it took to load and initialize the program binary and loading/linking the C standard library was the largest dependency it had. > and if you statically link, any decent linker won’t bring in what you don’t use Santa, a sufficiently smart compiler and a decent linker walk into a bar. Here the joke segfaults because someone passed the wrong buffer size into sprintf_s.