3 ms·
Compound literals are not too pretty and not too well known. Plus, if you care about c89... So, do you wrap all your values in a struct because the prototype
by clarry 13y ago
Compound literals are not too pretty and not too well known. Plus, if you care about c89... So, do you wrap all your values in a struct because the prototype gets too long otherwise? What a chore.
Preferring that function names start at the first column to make searching easier is a perfectly good justification.
You, on the other hand, seemingly would impose your tools (which have their shortcomings) and workflow on people with no justification at all.
Just because a tool exists, doesn't mean it's good (or better than what people are accustomed to) or that everyone must use it.
Do you think everyone should use Vim on Linux too?
- simias 13y agoNo, I think everyone should use Emacs on FreeBSD, but that's not my point. Adding syntactic sugar to a language makes the language bigger and harder to completely understand, it makes it easier to misuse a feature (and C already has a lot of trickery with types, like when you declare a parameter as an array but it behaves like a pointer). I'm a strong believer that implicit is better than explicit and that while there are many ways to do the same thing some are better than other in practice. Of course, "in practice" can change from one project to the other, what matters in consistency. I applaud the choice of Go to standardize on a single coding style for instance. For the particular example of the parent, while I write a lot of C code for work and for fun I have yet to encounter a situation where I saw a function taking 10 floats as arguments and thinking "yup, that's completely the right way to do that". If you have an example of such a code I'd me more that willing to reconsider my position, otherwise we're just talking about the best way to tame a unicorn.