3 ms·
It's 2023, and I love this. There is no reason to criticize the mere fact that someone took the effort to make something that portable. Even if you think they
by Brian_K_White 3y ago
It's 2023, and I love this. There is no reason to criticize the mere fact that someone took the effort to make something that portable.
Even if you think they wasted their time, they didn't waste your time, and I value the existence of things like this, which means even if you don't, at least some others do.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoC89 sometimes actually means gnu89 which is decidedly non-portable to modern standards in subtle ways. It's time to put that horse to pasture and consider at least using a 24 year old standard instead.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoIf gnu89 is not a perfect c89, so what? c11 is also not a perfect c89. ruby is also not a perfect c89. Swift is more convenient than c89 for ios. c89 doesn't have tons of features that c# has. We could say true yet irrelevant things all day long. You don't like c89 flavor ice cream, got it. So what?
- epcoa 3y agoThe only thing that matters here rather than the nonsense hypotheticals is that they are right, the library isn’t C89 as pointed out by others. This isn’t about not liking C89 flavor ice cream, but calling it C89 when it isn’t. Like, of all things why mislead about that? Very bizarre behavior from the OP and these comments. The more reasonable discussion then becomes: fix the non C89 issues so the statement becomes accurate, disclose that it uses extensions, or as some have constructively suggested consider just targeting C99 rather than GNU89. Not sure why you think criticism of something not being what it claims is inappropriate.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]