3 ms·

Yeah, almost the only time I'm writing C anymore is embedded, where I want to reason about type widths (while taking on as light a cognitive load as is possible

Yeah, almost the only time I'm writing C anymore is embedded, where I want to reason about type widths (while taking on as light a cognitive load as is possible). I have enough code that gets compiled to an 8, 16, or 32 bit target depending on context that having the bit width right on the tin is valuable. And it doesn't even cost me "hours and hours".

ryandrake 3y ago
Also: Embedded is almost the only time you really, truly need to care about how many bits a type is, and only when you're interacting with actual hardware. For almost every other routine task in programming, I would argue that it really doesn't matter if your int is 32 bits wide or 64 bits wide. Why go through the trouble of insisting on int32_t or int64_t? It probably doesn't matter for the things you are counting. Some programmers will say "Well, we should use int64_t here because int32_t might overflow!" OK, so why weren't you checking for overflow if it was an expected case? int64_t might overflow too, are you checking after every operation? Probably not. "OK, let's use uint64_t then, now we get 2x as many numbers!" Now you have other overflow (and subtraction) problems to handle. Nowadays, I just use int and move on with my life. It's one of those lessons from experience: "When I was younger, I used int and char because I didn't know any better. When I was older, I created this complex, elaborate type system because I knew better. Now that I'm wise, I just use int and char."
- terracottalite 3y ago
  > 2x as many numbers Minor correction, 2^32x as many numbers. Though I agree with your point. Edit: added x to the number for consistency and clarity.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    LOL yea, that's what was in my brain but somehow 2x got typed. Good catch.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > It's one of those lessons from experience: "When I was younger, I used int and char because I didn't know any better. When I was older, I created this complex, elaborate type system because I knew better. Now that I'm wise, I just use int and char." Right on, dude. I've gone full circle on that, too. I also spent years wandering the desert being enamored with the power of the C preprocessor. Eventually, I just ripped it out as much as possible, replacing it with ordinary C code. C is actually a decent language if you eschew the damned preprocessor.
- obviouslynotme 3y ago
  Sizing values is also great for reducing bandwidth footprint, either network or memory. The really good optimizations come from this.

ryandrake 3y ago

Also: Embedded is almost the only time you really, truly need to care about how many bits a type is, and only when you're interacting with actual hardware. For almost every other routine task in programming, I would argue that it really doesn't matter if your int is 32 bits wide or 64 bits wide. Why go through the trouble of insisting on int32_t or int64_t? It probably doesn't matter for the things you are counting. Some programmers will say "Well, we should use int64_t here because int32_t might overflow!" OK, so why weren't you checking for overflow if it was an expected case? int64_t might overflow too, are you checking after every operation? Probably not. "OK, let's use uint64_t then, now we get 2x as many numbers!" Now you have other overflow (and subtraction) problems to handle. Nowadays, I just use int and move on with my life. It's one of those lessons from experience: "When I was younger, I used int and char because I didn't know any better. When I was older, I created this complex, elaborate type system because I knew better. Now that I'm wise, I just use int and char."

terracottalite 3y ago
> 2x as many numbers Minor correction, 2^32x as many numbers. Though I agree with your point. Edit: added x to the number for consistency and clarity.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  LOL yea, that's what was in my brain but somehow 2x got typed. Good catch.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
WalterBright 3y ago
> It's one of those lessons from experience: "When I was younger, I used int and char because I didn't know any better. When I was older, I created this complex, elaborate type system because I knew better. Now that I'm wise, I just use int and char." Right on, dude. I've gone full circle on that, too. I also spent years wandering the desert being enamored with the power of the C preprocessor. Eventually, I just ripped it out as much as possible, replacing it with ordinary C code. C is actually a decent language if you eschew the damned preprocessor.
obviouslynotme 3y ago
Sizing values is also great for reducing bandwidth footprint, either network or memory. The really good optimizations come from this.