3 ms·
We are fortunately free to ignore "C23 and C2y" and stick with C89 (with the common extensions) or C99.
by Rochus 2y ago
We are fortunately free to ignore "C23 and C2y" and stick with C89 (with the common extensions) or C99.
- pjmlp 2y agoApplies to any programming language, feel free to use C++ARM for example. Until there is that special library that doesn't care about this target group of developers that want to stay in the past.
- uecker 2y agoWhat are the specific things you do not like about C23 or the C2y road map (whatever this is, it is more random walk)? I have my own list of course, but overall I still have some hope that C2y does not turn out to be a total disaster.
- Rochus 2y agoI've spent too little time with the recent standards/draft to give a specific answer. But I have a general attitude: C89 with extensions or C99 were just perfect for almost any purpuse; newer standards may well correct minor inadequacies or integrate things, that used to be implemented by proven libraries, directly into the language; but the price for these relatively minor improvements is high; people who write supposedly reusable code in the newer standards effectively force all older projects to switch to the newer standard; the costs of this are rarely justifiable. And there is C11 which made mandatory parts of the C99 standard optional, thus breaking backwards compatibility.