3 ms·

To play devil's advocate: it's because one size does not fit all. C gives you the flexibility to tailor your implementation for your specific needs. Whereas in

To play devil's advocate: it's because one size does not fit all. C gives you the flexibility to tailor your implementation for your specific needs. Whereas in a higher level language, you'd have to fight the language / standard library if your requirements don't match the "few" true ways to do things. That said, too many projects believe they have special needs, when they're better served just using e.g. apr in the first place.

TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
This argument does not make sense to me at all. C has a standard library, so why can't it be a good one? There's also many things about the language that could be improved without sacrificing any of its low-level qualities.
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
  There are many reasons IMHO: - C is designed by committee, so proposals to expand the standard library move slowly. - Specifications suitable for general computing may not be so for embedded micro-controllers. TBF this is slowly changing as well, given that a ARM CortexM can have double-digit kilobytes of memory now, and is almost as fast as a PII. - Philosophical: some C users maintain that C's supposed to be a "portable assembler" and higher level abstractions are beyond the scope[0]. This may sound tongue-in-cheek but: you should use C++ instead. Yes it has a lot of flaws of its own, but IMHO it really lives up to the spirit of being a "better C". It has (almost?) everything you said wanted in it standard library. And just because you're using C++ doesn't mean you have to go all-in with template meta-programming, objects, etc. I've written very C-ish code in C++, and only used parts of the C++ standard library I absolutely needed. Last time I did that I was able to "un-C++" my code later to satisfy upstream requirement (no capes!^W C++) relatively easily, after iterating with C++ first. [0] I know there are counterarguments that C's never been that and it's more a "convenient lie." Nonetheless the that's the spirit of the argument.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
    C++ lacks some of the good things added to C after C89, unfortunately.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Other than restrict, with dubious usage validation, I fail to see what.
  - xyzzy123 6y ago
    Finally, lack of vendor motivation. Nobody's making big money on C compilers, no huge company with deep pockets feels they would benefit significantly from a "stronger" C.

TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago

This argument does not make sense to me at all. C has a standard library, so why can't it be a good one? There's also many things about the language that could be improved without sacrificing any of its low-level qualities.

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
There are many reasons IMHO: - C is designed by committee, so proposals to expand the standard library move slowly. - Specifications suitable for general computing may not be so for embedded micro-controllers. TBF this is slowly changing as well, given that a ARM CortexM can have double-digit kilobytes of memory now, and is almost as fast as a PII. - Philosophical: some C users maintain that C's supposed to be a "portable assembler" and higher level abstractions are beyond the scope[0]. This may sound tongue-in-cheek but: you should use C++ instead. Yes it has a lot of flaws of its own, but IMHO it really lives up to the spirit of being a "better C". It has (almost?) everything you said wanted in it standard library. And just because you're using C++ doesn't mean you have to go all-in with template meta-programming, objects, etc. I've written very C-ish code in C++, and only used parts of the C++ standard library I absolutely needed. Last time I did that I was able to "un-C++" my code later to satisfy upstream requirement (no capes!^W C++) relatively easily, after iterating with C++ first. [0] I know there are counterarguments that C's never been that and it's more a "convenient lie." Nonetheless the that's the spirit of the argument.
- TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
  C++ lacks some of the good things added to C after C89, unfortunately.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Other than restrict, with dubious usage validation, I fail to see what.
- xyzzy123 6y ago
  Finally, lack of vendor motivation. Nobody's making big money on C compilers, no huge company with deep pockets feels they would benefit significantly from a "stronger" C.