6 ms·

Guess I grew up with old-school C. Looking at the question with example code made me think: "Am I missing something? Looks like pretty ordinary C to me. Why wou

by jbuzbee 14y ago

Guess I grew up with old-school C. Looking at the question with example code made me think: "Am I missing something? Looks like pretty ordinary C to me. Why wouldn't it compile?"

gburt 14y ago
Yeah, I definitely expected code with missing braces/brackets or something. This is pretty clear why it compiles.
minimax 14y ago
If you were a programmer in the days before C had prototypes then you are definitely from the old school. If you're working on code that still looks like this in 2012 then maybe it's time to brush up on modern C. ;-)
- hnriot 14y ago
  He didn't say he still works on code like this, but like me, this program is obviously fine, there's no point in asking why it works because c is backward compatible and it's pretty clear to anyone who knows c that this will work. It doesn't mean we'd write code like that...
  - asveikau 14y ago
    This is what bothers me about a lot of programmer communities these days. What is a very mundane detail of K&R legacy, that C programmers know very well either from looking at old source trees or making sense of error messages, suddenly turns into something where 116 people (current stack overflow +1 count) are totally amazed and breathless that they've discovered something deep. I suppose it's fair if they just don't know C, so they've not seen it and find it interesting, but could this person's dilemma not be resolved with a simple google search? Or even taking a guess?
    - Retric 14y ago
      It can be really hard to Google things when you don't know the terms involved. Until, someone posts source code and you get directed to stack overflow etc. Thus, the fact that out of millions of people with some familiarity with C 100 or 1000 chose to up vote an obvious post does not really seem that strange.
      - greenyoda 14y ago
        You don't even have to Google it. The Wikipedia article on C talks about K&R C vs. modern C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29#K.26R_C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29#K...
      - kelnos 14y ago
        Thing is, the C standard (compared to many other standards) isn't even that complicated. Googling for the C standard doc, and then grepping through for "function declaration" would likely clear that up. But it's way easier to consult the lazyweb than to do your own research.
        Retric 14y ago
        Searching for "C standard doc" does not actually work. "C99 standard doc" let's you find http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf but searching for "function declaration" does not take you anywhere useful. That's not to say reading the whole thing is a waste of time, just beyond the scope of most new programmers.
    - fayden 14y ago
      Why do you assume 116 people are "amazed and breathless"? It's an interesting question and I don't believe the answer is obvious unless you've been exposed to legacy C code before, and such users may arguably constitute a large part of SO's audience. You may be able to solve the question by a simple search, but it still fits in on StackOverflow. The fact that it was upvoted a lot is irrelevant to me, it just means a few people bothered to press a button.
- jbuzbee 14y ago
  Yeah :-) I didn't say I would -write- code like that. I only meant it looked like a lot of code I've run into over the years!
cube13 14y ago
It's been a while since I've done this(usually by accident), but I believe that GCC and Visual Studio both throw up a warning along the lines of "Type not defined, assuming int".
- Ogre 14y ago
  I see questions online all the time that make me wonder just how old the compiler being used is. Modern versions of GCC, Clang and Visual Studio all have warnings enabled by default for an awful lot of valid, but probably wrong, code. Apparently people learning to code are somehow winding up on old compilers much more often than those of us who have been writing C and C++ for a long time. Or, I guess, the people having problems learning to code are the people who happen to be on ancient compilers. Maybe it's not so surprising after all.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Compilers from the CD-ROMs in the back of ancient programming books from libraries maybe?
  - cube13 14y ago
    It might be the default settings on the compilers as well. I believe that in our environment, we set our warning level higher than the default, because a lot of the warnings(signed/unsigned mismatch, 32/64-bit pointers, etc.) can be an indication of an actual bug.
  - Someone 14y ago
    I think it is more likely something like this: Many C programmers cannot make valid judgments as to the severity of a warning ('warning: bla bla may ...' => does it or doesn't it? I wouldn't know) Also, those programmers typically would not know how to change their code to get rid of warnings. If they do, or if their compiler shoves a solution in their face (for example, a compiler might suggest to do "if((y=f(x)))") to get rid of an 'assignment inside if' warning), they do not see the advantage of the extra work. The end result is code that produces hundreds of warnings. If a code change brings in a new one, people don't notice and/or don't care. Some IDEs make things worse by allowing you to filter out warnings and messages from their output, so that you can focus on compiler errors. That is good for good programmers (they will fix errors, compile again, and then study every single warning), but bad for those who are happy to have code that compiles at all, as they will run into 'do not show me warnings' mode.
rnadna 14y ago
Me too. And I didn't realize that made me old, until scanning this thread. I guess time flies.
kelnos 14y ago
Hah, yeah. I looked at it and thought, "well, I'd kick someone for writing code like that nowadays, but looks perfectly valid to me." (And I'm not even that old! I've only been writing C for 12 years or so!)

by jbuzbee 14y ago

Guess I grew up with old-school C. Looking at the question with example code made me think: "Am I missing something? Looks like pretty ordinary C to me. Why wouldn't it compile?"

gburt 14y ago

Yeah, I definitely expected code with missing braces/brackets or something. This is pretty clear why it compiles.

minimax 14y ago

If you were a programmer in the days before C had prototypes then you are definitely from the old school. If you're working on code that still looks like this in 2012 then maybe it's time to brush up on modern C. ;-)

hnriot 14y ago
He didn't say he still works on code like this, but like me, this program is obviously fine, there's no point in asking why it works because c is backward compatible and it's pretty clear to anyone who knows c that this will work. It doesn't mean we'd write code like that...
- asveikau 14y ago
  This is what bothers me about a lot of programmer communities these days. What is a very mundane detail of K&R legacy, that C programmers know very well either from looking at old source trees or making sense of error messages, suddenly turns into something where 116 people (current stack overflow +1 count) are totally amazed and breathless that they've discovered something deep. I suppose it's fair if they just don't know C, so they've not seen it and find it interesting, but could this person's dilemma not be resolved with a simple google search? Or even taking a guess?
  - Retric 14y ago
    It can be really hard to Google things when you don't know the terms involved. Until, someone posts source code and you get directed to stack overflow etc. Thus, the fact that out of millions of people with some familiarity with C 100 or 1000 chose to up vote an obvious post does not really seem that strange.
    - greenyoda 14y ago
      You don't even have to Google it. The Wikipedia article on C talks about K&R C vs. modern C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29#K.26R_C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29#K...
    - kelnos 14y ago
      Thing is, the C standard (compared to many other standards) isn't even that complicated. Googling for the C standard doc, and then grepping through for "function declaration" would likely clear that up. But it's way easier to consult the lazyweb than to do your own research.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Searching for "C standard doc" does not actually work. "C99 standard doc" let's you find http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf but searching for "function declaration" does not take you anywhere useful. That's not to say reading the whole thing is a waste of time, just beyond the scope of most new programmers.
  - fayden 14y ago
    Why do you assume 116 people are "amazed and breathless"? It's an interesting question and I don't believe the answer is obvious unless you've been exposed to legacy C code before, and such users may arguably constitute a large part of SO's audience. You may be able to solve the question by a simple search, but it still fits in on StackOverflow. The fact that it was upvoted a lot is irrelevant to me, it just means a few people bothered to press a button.
jbuzbee 14y ago
Yeah :-) I didn't say I would -write- code like that. I only meant it looked like a lot of code I've run into over the years!

cube13 14y ago

It's been a while since I've done this(usually by accident), but I believe that GCC and Visual Studio both throw up a warning along the lines of "Type not defined, assuming int".

Ogre 14y ago
I see questions online all the time that make me wonder just how old the compiler being used is. Modern versions of GCC, Clang and Visual Studio all have warnings enabled by default for an awful lot of valid, but probably wrong, code. Apparently people learning to code are somehow winding up on old compilers much more often than those of us who have been writing C and C++ for a long time. Or, I guess, the people having problems learning to code are the people who happen to be on ancient compilers. Maybe it's not so surprising after all.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Compilers from the CD-ROMs in the back of ancient programming books from libraries maybe?
- cube13 14y ago
  It might be the default settings on the compilers as well. I believe that in our environment, we set our warning level higher than the default, because a lot of the warnings(signed/unsigned mismatch, 32/64-bit pointers, etc.) can be an indication of an actual bug.
- Someone 14y ago
  I think it is more likely something like this: Many C programmers cannot make valid judgments as to the severity of a warning ('warning: bla bla may ...' => does it or doesn't it? I wouldn't know) Also, those programmers typically would not know how to change their code to get rid of warnings. If they do, or if their compiler shoves a solution in their face (for example, a compiler might suggest to do "if((y=f(x)))") to get rid of an 'assignment inside if' warning), they do not see the advantage of the extra work. The end result is code that produces hundreds of warnings. If a code change brings in a new one, people don't notice and/or don't care. Some IDEs make things worse by allowing you to filter out warnings and messages from their output, so that you can focus on compiler errors. That is good for good programmers (they will fix errors, compile again, and then study every single warning), but bad for those who are happy to have code that compiles at all, as they will run into 'do not show me warnings' mode.

rnadna 14y ago

Me too. And I didn't realize that made me old, until scanning this thread. I guess time flies.

kelnos 14y ago

Hah, yeah. I looked at it and thought, "well, I'd kick someone for writing code like that nowadays, but looks perfectly valid to me." (And I'm not even that old! I've only been writing C for 12 years or so!)