> C doesn't have any methods at all, neither old methods nor newer methods. There's no such thing as a method in C. This would explain your mistakes in, for exa

> C doesn't have any methods at all, neither old methods nor newer methods. There's no such thing as a method in C. This would explain your mistakes in, for example, thinking that strncpy() was safer, or that strcpy() had been removed from the C standard. This is an overly pedantic, ungenerous interpretation of what I wrote. First, fine - you can argue that C has functions, not methods. But eh. Second, for all practical purposes, C on Linux does have a standard library. It’s just - as you mentioned - not quite the same on every platform. We wouldn’t be talking about strcpy if C had no standard library equivalent. Third, thankyou for the suggestion that there are even better examples than strcpy -> strncpy that I could have used to make my point more strongly. I should have chosen sprintf, gets or scanf. I’ve been out of the game of writing C professionally for 15 years or so. I know a whole lot more about C than most. But memories fade with time. Thanks for the corrections. Likewise, no need to get snarky with them.