3 ms·

Not GP. I watched the video and didn't learn anything new. I know UB pretty well. > Compilers generaly do not abuse UB It's disheartening to see this take fr

Not GP. I watched the video and didn't learn anything new. I know UB pretty well. > Compilers generaly do not abuse UB It's disheartening to see this take from the guy who said that one word broke C. It is also false, in my experience because some people, including compiler developers, think that compiler freedom is the definition of UB, not a side effect of that one-word change: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/08/the-scourge-of-00ub/ https://gavinhoward.com/2023/08/the-scourge-of-00ub/ So your claim in the video that such things are scary to compiler developers is sad. They have broken existing code; they are not afraid to. I used to be somewhat confident (https://gavinhoward.com/2024/05/a-grateful-open-letter-to-jeanheyd-meneide/ https://gavinhoward.com/2024/05/a-grateful-open-letter-to-je...) in the direction of C with you and JeanHeyd Meneide on WG14. But if you sincerely believe what you just said, then it seems you have changed your mind since you wrote that one word changed C. So I am not as confident anymore.

quelsolaar 2y ago
My "one word broke C" article is wrong in all kinds of ways. I understand C way better than i used to. The things that need fixing in C are not UB, its very complex memory model stuff. I have no interest in changing any fundamentals or adding new features.
- gavinhoward 2y ago
  It is sad to see your transformation. 00UB does need fixing, and C needs less UB. If you don't think so anymore, then C will become untenable for me to use. > I understand C way better than i used to. Maybe, but I did not see it in that video. What I do know is that you do not know much about the humans using C or the environments where C is used. C is a tool for humans, not machines. Prioritizing machines over humans will make C worse over time, and implementors will use that to further excuse their behavior.

quelsolaar 2y ago

My "one word broke C" article is wrong in all kinds of ways. I understand C way better than i used to. The things that need fixing in C are not UB, its very complex memory model stuff. I have no interest in changing any fundamentals or adding new features.

gavinhoward 2y ago
It is sad to see your transformation. 00UB does need fixing, and C needs less UB. If you don't think so anymore, then C will become untenable for me to use. > I understand C way better than i used to. Maybe, but I did not see it in that video. What I do know is that you do not know much about the humans using C or the environments where C is used. C is a tool for humans, not machines. Prioritizing machines over humans will make C worse over time, and implementors will use that to further excuse their behavior.