4 ms·

How about some basic hash table support in the standard library first? I know this is snarky, but ISO's priorities over the past couple decades... :(

by dmpk2k 2y ago

rishav_sharan 2y ago
Yep. Basic hash table. Spec out all undefined behaviour. Standardize abi. Etc. so many things to do with c to actually make it useful instead of c++ lite
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  > Standardize abi What's with this strange desire to mandate One True Way to implement function calls in every language implementation? If I want to use rbx/r11/r10/r9 for argument passing and return results in rdx/rsi by default and have to use @if os.LINUX and cpu.X64 import external func[[regseq("rdi,rsi,rdx,rcx|rax"), library("libc.so")]] fwrite(buff ptr, size int64, count int64, stream ptr) int64; @endif to interoperate with one particular implementation of libc for one particular OS on one particular ISA, then that should be perfectly fine.
  - dale_glass 2y ago
    That in no way conflicts with the existence of a standard. A standard is just a common default, you can deviate from it. And this being C the ability to do so when needed would be expected.
- klodolph 2y ago
  I get why people want those things but you can’t spec out undefined behavior and end up with a version of C that people want. Not sure what “standardize ABI” is supposed to mean… each platform has its own ABI, and most of those ABIs are already standardized. The standards are just not part of the C standard.
klodolph 2y ago
I would rather not: - It involves making too many decisions on behalf of users. C++ dodges the question somewhat by making hash tables templated, so you can customize them. - There are a hojillion hash table libraries out there which are written in C—just pick one and use it.
- dmpk2k 2y ago
  The latter point is a very strong argument for a hash table implementation in the standard library.
  - klodolph 2y ago
    I don’t see how that argument follows.
    - dmpk2k 2y ago
      If everyone is reinventing the same wheel, then... Furthermore, those wheels aren't necessarily interoperable the way something built into the standard library would be; it's not just a convenience.

How about some basic hash table support in the standard library first? I know this is snarky, but ISO's priorities over the past couple decades... :(

by dmpk2k 2y ago

How about some basic hash table support in the standard library first? I know this is snarky, but ISO's priorities over the past couple decades... :(

rishav_sharan 2y ago

Yep. Basic hash table. Spec out all undefined behaviour. Standardize abi. Etc. so many things to do with c to actually make it useful instead of c++ lite

Joker_vD 2y ago
> Standardize abi What's with this strange desire to mandate One True Way to implement function calls in every language implementation? If I want to use rbx/r11/r10/r9 for argument passing and return results in rdx/rsi by default and have to use @if os.LINUX and cpu.X64 import external func[[regseq("rdi,rsi,rdx,rcx|rax"), library("libc.so")]] fwrite(buff ptr, size int64, count int64, stream ptr) int64; @endif to interoperate with one particular implementation of libc for one particular OS on one particular ISA, then that should be perfectly fine.
- dale_glass 2y ago
  That in no way conflicts with the existence of a standard. A standard is just a common default, you can deviate from it. And this being C the ability to do so when needed would be expected.
klodolph 2y ago
I get why people want those things but you can’t spec out undefined behavior and end up with a version of C that people want. Not sure what “standardize ABI” is supposed to mean… each platform has its own ABI, and most of those ABIs are already standardized. The standards are just not part of the C standard.

klodolph 2y ago

I would rather not: - It involves making too many decisions on behalf of users. C++ dodges the question somewhat by making hash tables templated, so you can customize them. - There are a hojillion hash table libraries out there which are written in C—just pick one and use it.

dmpk2k 2y ago
The latter point is a very strong argument for a hash table implementation in the standard library.
- klodolph 2y ago
  I don’t see how that argument follows.
  - dmpk2k 2y ago
    If everyone is reinventing the same wheel, then... Furthermore, those wheels aren't necessarily interoperable the way something built into the standard library would be; it's not just a convenience.