3 ms·

I don't really understand the, "crusty, old language," argument either. C++ became an ISO-certified specification in 1998 which is roughly around the same time

I don't really understand the, "crusty, old language," argument either. C++ became an ISO-certified specification in 1998 which is roughly around the same time that CL became an ANSI standardized language. We still use C in many systems for very valid reasons. However unlike the C++ and ANSI C standards, the CL specification left room for programmers to extend the language as they need it. Instead of waiting for decades of expensive committee debates and meetings as you do with C/C++/ECMAScript/etc the programmers using the language in the field can go ahead and add the features they need and implementors can fill the gaps between new OSs and hardware. How is that bad?

jlarocco 13y ago
It's bad because every implementation fills the gaps in their own incompatible way. And then instead of converging on the "best" solution, the community argues endlessly about each unique solution is the best. And it's also bad because CL is ancient and it's filled with things that simply don't make sense any more, or have been replaced by "better" solutions in every other language. Look at filename and filepath handling to see what I mean. 2 or 3 of the fields haven't been used in real systems in 20 or 30 years, yet they're kept around because they're in the unchanging CL standard.