5 ms·

I like Eiffel. But if I want to use Eiffel, I’ll use Eiffel (or Sather). I’d rather C remained C. Maybe that’s just me?

by __d 1y ago

jimbob45 1y ago
Java 24 and C# 9 resemble little of their first versions. C++ might as well not even be the same language at this point. Why are we so conservative with C but then so happily liberal with every other language?
- dmitrygr 1y ago
  Because there must be at least one refuge for the sane
- HexDecOctBin 1y ago
  People chose C because they liked C. Of course they don't want C to change. The only thing the ISO committee should be adding is stuff for filling in the holes in language (C23's Improved Tag Compatibility and __VA_OPT__ are good examples), not add features that were never part of C and were never supposed to be there. Your question can be reflected back to you: if you want an ever changing languages, go to Java, C# or C++, why mess with C?
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    > People chose C because they liked C. Of course they don't want C to change. The same thing can be said for every other language, yet they change.
    - oguz-ismail 1y ago
      Well they shouldn't have. It was much more fun to program in Python 2.7 and Java 7, I wouldn't touch those languages with a five feet pole these days
      - lifthrasiir 1y ago
        Why specifically Python 2.7 and not, like, 1.5? Python 1 and 2 are as different as 2 and 3 (that is, surprisingly not much).
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      A common thing people write about D is don't add any more features except for their feature proposals. :-)
  - brabel 1y ago
    This is funny because Java people say the same about Kotlin and Scala.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    No, many people chose C, because they had to.
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      Yeah but those people are running it on some platform where it’s the only choice. And they are probably running a subset of C99. The likelihood of new features ever making it to those platforms is close to zero.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        There is hardly any new C compiler that isn't C11.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        I’ve been out of embedded for a bit but last I checked almost nothing actually implemented all of C11?
        pjmlp 1y ago
        There is hardly any compiler worth using that isn't a fork of either GCC or clang. So unless they are stuck on a pre-historic fork, they support C11 as much as clang and GCC do. Exception for stuff like PIC, Z80,... Which didn't even support proper C on their glory days.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    C added the absurd normalized Unicode identifiers.
- nananana9 1y ago
  The complexity of C# and C++ should be a warning, not something to strive towards. C++ has 3 reasonable implementations, C has hundreds, for all sorts of platforms, where you don't get anything else. Most C developers don't want a modern C, they want a reliable C. WG14 should be pushing for clarifications on UB, the memory and threading model, documenting where implementations differ, and what parts of the language can be relied and what not. Nobody really needs a new way to do asserts, case ranges, or a new way to write the word "NULL".
  - lifthrasiir 1y ago
    C++ historically had much more implementations. It is probably more about the availability of quality compilers that are free to use and adapt, because even in C most new compilers for niche platforms are now based on GCC or clang for the practical reason.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Both implementated in C++. As someone that remembers the t-shirts with "my compiler compiles yours" that some C folks used to wear, it is kind of ironic having that turned around on them.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > The complexity of C# and C++ should be a warning, not something to strive towards. I think this talk about "complexity" is a red herring. C++ remains one of the most popular languages ever designed, and one of the key reasons is that since C++11 the standardization effort picked up steam and started including features that the developer community wanted and was eager to get. I still recall the time that randos criticized C++ for being a dead language and being too minimalistic and spartan. > C++ has 3 reasonable implementations, C has hundreds, for all sorts of platforms, where you don't get anything else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Go through the list of the most popular programming languages, and perhaps half of them are languages which only have a single implementation. What compelled you to criticize C++ for having at least 3 production-quality implementations? > Most C developers don't want a modern C, they want a reliable C. You speak only for yourself. Your personal opinion is based on survivorship bias. I can tel you that as a matter of fact a key reason why the likes of Rust took off was that people working with low-level systems programming were desperate for a C with better developer experience and sane and usable standard library. > Nobody really needs a new way to do asserts, case ranges, or a new way to write the word "NULL". Again, you speak for yourself, and yourself alone. You believe you don't need new features. That's fine. But you speak for yourself.
OCTAGRAM 1y ago
Eiffel has unsolicited tracing garbage collection. For TGC-free programming there is Ada
veltas 1y ago
Truly I agree, but if we can add features to improve C codebases without rewriting them then that's a win, and you can just ignore them if you don't like them (as I will), but to the people where this has benefit they can be used.
pjmlp 1y ago
Languages are software products like everything else in computing, either they evolve or they whither and die. C especially was designed with lots of security defects, and had it not been for UNIX being available for free, it would probably never taken off.
- HexDecOctBin 1y ago
  More likely they evolve AND they whither and die. The number of software I have stopped using due to bad updates is much higher than those with not enough updates.
johnisgood 1y ago
Ada / SPARK has contracts, too, that can be proven at compile-time. In fact, Ada alone suffices, it has pre- and post-conditions. I think Ada has more libraries than Eiffel does. Does anyone even write Eiffel? I am really curious if it is still alive anywhere, in some form.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Eiffel failed largely because of licensing restrictions.
flykespice 1y ago
Are you being really honest with yourself that you would renounce c90, c99 additions to stay with the original language as it was introduced in K&R C book?

I like Eiffel. But if I want to use Eiffel, I’ll use Eiffel (or Sather). I’d rather C remained C. Maybe that’s just me?

by __d 1y ago

I like Eiffel. But if I want to use Eiffel, I’ll use Eiffel (or Sather). I’d rather C remained C. Maybe that’s just me?

Java 24 and C# 9 resemble little of their first versions. C++ might as well not even be the same language at this point. Why are we so conservative with C but then so happily liberal with every other language?

dmitrygr 1y ago
Because there must be at least one refuge for the sane
HexDecOctBin 1y ago
People chose C because they liked C. Of course they don't want C to change. The only thing the ISO committee should be adding is stuff for filling in the holes in language (C23's Improved Tag Compatibility and __VA_OPT__ are good examples), not add features that were never part of C and were never supposed to be there. Your question can be reflected back to you: if you want an ever changing languages, go to Java, C# or C++, why mess with C?
- xboxnolifes 1y ago
  > People chose C because they liked C. Of course they don't want C to change. The same thing can be said for every other language, yet they change.
  - oguz-ismail 1y ago
    Well they shouldn't have. It was much more fun to program in Python 2.7 and Java 7, I wouldn't touch those languages with a five feet pole these days
    - lifthrasiir 1y ago
      Why specifically Python 2.7 and not, like, 1.5? Python 1 and 2 are as different as 2 and 3 (that is, surprisingly not much).
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    A common thing people write about D is don't add any more features except for their feature proposals. :-)
- brabel 1y ago
  This is funny because Java people say the same about Kotlin and Scala.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  No, many people chose C, because they had to.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    Yeah but those people are running it on some platform where it’s the only choice. And they are probably running a subset of C99. The likelihood of new features ever making it to those platforms is close to zero.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      There is hardly any new C compiler that isn't C11.
      - sarchertech 1y ago
        I’ve been out of embedded for a bit but last I checked almost nothing actually implemented all of C11?
        pjmlp 1y ago
        There is hardly any compiler worth using that isn't a fork of either GCC or clang. So unless they are stuck on a pre-historic fork, they support C11 as much as clang and GCC do. Exception for stuff like PIC, Z80,... Which didn't even support proper C on their glory days.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  C added the absurd normalized Unicode identifiers.
nananana9 1y ago
The complexity of C# and C++ should be a warning, not something to strive towards. C++ has 3 reasonable implementations, C has hundreds, for all sorts of platforms, where you don't get anything else. Most C developers don't want a modern C, they want a reliable C. WG14 should be pushing for clarifications on UB, the memory and threading model, documenting where implementations differ, and what parts of the language can be relied and what not. Nobody really needs a new way to do asserts, case ranges, or a new way to write the word "NULL".
- lifthrasiir 1y ago
  C++ historically had much more implementations. It is probably more about the availability of quality compilers that are free to use and adapt, because even in C most new compilers for niche platforms are now based on GCC or clang for the practical reason.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Both implementated in C++. As someone that remembers the t-shirts with "my compiler compiles yours" that some C folks used to wear, it is kind of ironic having that turned around on them.
- motorest 1y ago
  > The complexity of C# and C++ should be a warning, not something to strive towards. I think this talk about "complexity" is a red herring. C++ remains one of the most popular languages ever designed, and one of the key reasons is that since C++11 the standardization effort picked up steam and started including features that the developer community wanted and was eager to get. I still recall the time that randos criticized C++ for being a dead language and being too minimalistic and spartan. > C++ has 3 reasonable implementations, C has hundreds, for all sorts of platforms, where you don't get anything else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Go through the list of the most popular programming languages, and perhaps half of them are languages which only have a single implementation. What compelled you to criticize C++ for having at least 3 production-quality implementations? > Most C developers don't want a modern C, they want a reliable C. You speak only for yourself. Your personal opinion is based on survivorship bias. I can tel you that as a matter of fact a key reason why the likes of Rust took off was that people working with low-level systems programming were desperate for a C with better developer experience and sane and usable standard library. > Nobody really needs a new way to do asserts, case ranges, or a new way to write the word "NULL". Again, you speak for yourself, and yourself alone. You believe you don't need new features. That's fine. But you speak for yourself.

OCTAGRAM 1y ago

Eiffel has unsolicited tracing garbage collection. For TGC-free programming there is Ada

veltas 1y ago

Truly I agree, but if we can add features to improve C codebases without rewriting them then that's a win, and you can just ignore them if you don't like them (as I will), but to the people where this has benefit they can be used.

pjmlp 1y ago

Languages are software products like everything else in computing, either they evolve or they whither and die. C especially was designed with lots of security defects, and had it not been for UNIX being available for free, it would probably never taken off.

HexDecOctBin 1y ago
More likely they evolve AND they whither and die. The number of software I have stopped using due to bad updates is much higher than those with not enough updates.

johnisgood 1y ago

Ada / SPARK has contracts, too, that can be proven at compile-time. In fact, Ada alone suffices, it has pre- and post-conditions. I think Ada has more libraries than Eiffel does. Does anyone even write Eiffel? I am really curious if it is still alive anywhere, in some form.

WalterBright 1y ago
Eiffel failed largely because of licensing restrictions.

flykespice 1y ago

Are you being really honest with yourself that you would renounce c90, c99 additions to stay with the original language as it was introduced in K&R C book?