3 ms·
Like I said above, I don't see the relevance in pointing out that the C standard has problems related to bitfields. Rust is supposed to be an improvement upon C
by ajxs 5y ago
Like I said above, I don't see the relevance in pointing out that the C standard has problems related to bitfields. Rust is supposed to be an improvement upon C. Ada managed to implement a standard for defining structures at the bit level in a portable way back in the 80s. Saying that Rust can't do it now because the C standard doesn't sufficiently specify bitfield semantics isn't a good answer.
- msbarnett 5y ago> Saying that Rust can't do it now because the C standard doesn't sufficiently specify bitfield semantics isn't a good answer. I don't think anybody is saying that? Particularly given that Rust is working on precisely that. The argument is merely that not currently having a good bitfield solution is hardly a showstopper for systems development, given that C is already far more popular in that area than Ada despite its deeply deficient version of bitfields which leads to them being banned in a great many codebases.