4 ms·

I don't see the difference between saying "this is valid C99 code" and "this is valid 'paranoid C' code". At least not if your 'paranoid C' compiler is working

I don't see the difference between saying "this is valid C99 code" and "this is valid 'paranoid C' code". At least not if your 'paranoid C' compiler is working to a specification.

lmm 12y ago
People would compile "paranoid C" with a normal C compiler (perhaps there is no paranoid C compiler for their platform). If your code is silently broken on some compilers, that's arguably even worse than being silently broken on all compilers. It would be better to a) make a compiler that errors out on any undefined behaviour (so that people would fix it in their code and it would then be fixed everywhere they compile) and/or b) use a new language.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  "Paranoid C" would be a new language. It's just far easier to define a new language in terms of an extension to an existing language than making a new one from scratch. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, C++ started as an extension to C in the same way. The reasoning for having it an extension is mainly so that current code can be trivially ported.
  - lmm 12y ago
    If you permit calling C libraries from "paranoid C", that would give a very confusing debugging experience, where the semantics of identical code was different depending on which file that code happened to reside in. If you don't... maybe. But do you realistically think "paranoid C" would ever get its library ecosystem up to a level where it matched e.g. OCaml? Do you think embedded vendors would be more likely to support it (the other big use case for C)? If you're going to be switching libraries anyway, OCaml is a much nicer language to work in.
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
      You can say the same about C and C++: [1] (On a side note. I like OCaml, but don't like the syntax. I wish there was a language out there that was basically OCaml with c-like syntax. Or rather, I wish language syntax in general was less coupled with language semantics. It should be possible, and is, to, for example, automatically convert between Pythonic-style indentation and C-style braces and lisp-esque braces. Define the language in terms of an AST and leave the syntax up to the editor.) [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12887700/can-code-that-is-valid-in-both-c-and-c-produce-different-behavior-when-compile http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12887700/can-code-that-is...

I don't see the difference between saying "this is valid C99 code" and "this is valid 'paranoid C' code". At least not if your 'paranoid C' compiler is working to a specification.

lmm 12y ago

People would compile "paranoid C" with a normal C compiler (perhaps there is no paranoid C compiler for their platform). If your code is silently broken on some compilers, that's arguably even worse than being silently broken on all compilers. It would be better to a) make a compiler that errors out on any undefined behaviour (so that people would fix it in their code and it would then be fixed everywhere they compile) and/or b) use a new language.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
"Paranoid C" would be a new language. It's just far easier to define a new language in terms of an extension to an existing language than making a new one from scratch. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, C++ started as an extension to C in the same way. The reasoning for having it an extension is mainly so that current code can be trivially ported.
- lmm 12y ago
  If you permit calling C libraries from "paranoid C", that would give a very confusing debugging experience, where the semantics of identical code was different depending on which file that code happened to reside in. If you don't... maybe. But do you realistically think "paranoid C" would ever get its library ecosystem up to a level where it matched e.g. OCaml? Do you think embedded vendors would be more likely to support it (the other big use case for C)? If you're going to be switching libraries anyway, OCaml is a much nicer language to work in.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    You can say the same about C and C++: [1] (On a side note. I like OCaml, but don't like the syntax. I wish there was a language out there that was basically OCaml with c-like syntax. Or rather, I wish language syntax in general was less coupled with language semantics. It should be possible, and is, to, for example, automatically convert between Pythonic-style indentation and C-style braces and lisp-esque braces. Define the language in terms of an AST and leave the syntax up to the editor.) [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12887700/can-code-that-is-valid-in-both-c-and-c-produce-different-behavior-when-compile http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12887700/can-code-that-is...