4 ms·

There's no such thing as "standard C" that you can actually write, due to UB and implementation defined behaviour. There's just (C, compiler version, platform)

by taneq 2y ago

There's no such thing as "standard C" that you can actually write, due to UB and implementation defined behaviour. There's just (C, compiler version, platform) that defines (if only through the compiler's source code) what will actually happen in any given situation.

perching_aix 2y ago
so because there are implementation defined behaviors in the standard, language extensions become okay?
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  Language extensions are a feature, not a bug. They allow C to evolve and C compilers to compete without requiring committee consensus. Good extensions will eventually be picked up by other compilers, and maybe even find their way into the standard.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    sure, i get the joke, i just don't like it. it's the same story as browsers. proprietary extensions in the name of progress because technically it's allowed, but also unimplemented standardized features galore, necessitating polyfill libraries and frequent checking of support matrices. it's just sprawl with popular support.
    - gpderetta 2y ago
      It is very different. A web browser is a (almost) fully self contained environment. Same with something like JAVA. On the other hand a standard C or C++ compiler+runtime has (by design) very little features. Anything beyond trivial programs has to reach to platform specific features. Even POSIX is often not enough.
      - perching_aix 2y ago
        not sure i'm following? i was referring exactly to those "few" language features, e.g.: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    I love when we discuss C or C++, "Language extensions are a feature, not a bug", but then when discuss other languages that try to do without C, by adding extensios to their language reference, the speech turns into "Language extensions are a weakness, not a feature". Additionlly "Language extensions are a feature, not a bug" seems only to be valid in the context of C and C++, IF the compilers being discussed are GCC or clang, because God forbid a comercial C or C++ compiler to have language extensions. Speaking in general about the way these subjects are discussed online, not you in particular.
uecker 2y ago
It is entirely possible to write strictly conforming C.

by taneq 2y ago

perching_aix 2y ago

so because there are implementation defined behaviors in the standard, language extensions become okay?

flohofwoe 2y ago
Language extensions are a feature, not a bug. They allow C to evolve and C compilers to compete without requiring committee consensus. Good extensions will eventually be picked up by other compilers, and maybe even find their way into the standard.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  sure, i get the joke, i just don't like it. it's the same story as browsers. proprietary extensions in the name of progress because technically it's allowed, but also unimplemented standardized features galore, necessitating polyfill libraries and frequent checking of support matrices. it's just sprawl with popular support.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    It is very different. A web browser is a (almost) fully self contained environment. Same with something like JAVA. On the other hand a standard C or C++ compiler+runtime has (by design) very little features. Anything beyond trivial programs has to reach to platform specific features. Even POSIX is often not enough.
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      not sure i'm following? i was referring exactly to those "few" language features, e.g.: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support
- pjmlp 2y ago
  I love when we discuss C or C++, "Language extensions are a feature, not a bug", but then when discuss other languages that try to do without C, by adding extensios to their language reference, the speech turns into "Language extensions are a weakness, not a feature". Additionlly "Language extensions are a feature, not a bug" seems only to be valid in the context of C and C++, IF the compilers being discussed are GCC or clang, because God forbid a comercial C or C++ compiler to have language extensions. Speaking in general about the way these subjects are discussed online, not you in particular.

uecker 2y ago

It is entirely possible to write strictly conforming C.