2 ms·
mmm... the assertion that C is subject to bit-rot because it's maintainers keep adding fancy new features doesn't seem to be supported by the factual record. I
by retrocryptid 3y ago
mmm... the assertion that C is subject to bit-rot because it's maintainers keep adding fancy new features doesn't seem to be supported by the factual record. I wonder what compiler they're using that makes them think the language changes so often that you have to keep coming back to the source every couple years to repair it. Rust and Python have that problem, of course, but there's code I wrote in 1982 that still compiles with gcc and clang (and seems to do the same thing it did when compiled with whatever compiler was on 3B2's in the 80s.)
- NonEUCitizen 3y agoThere's a not in the sentence... "As a side note, the C program will most likely not endure bit-rot due to new fancy features being rolled out in the next version of the language."
- retrocryptid 3y agoI stand corrected. I'm glad I didn't get all pissy about it. I think I can agree with his sentiments a bit more now. Thx for politely showing me I was wrong. Dang, I read that sentence three times and didn't notice the "not." I probably need more sleep.