this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
66 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
17443 readers
162 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's good and all, but we all explicitly pass
-std=gnu99(or-std=c99if you don't care about MSYS2 compat) in our build scripts buddy πOkay, maybe not all all. But you get the idea.
Are there any relevant projects who use the increasingly C++-infested newer versions of the language?
I'm not a C programmer, but looking at the changes and improvements, there are lot of good advancements I would not want to miss out on: C11 (C17 just fixes a few little issues from C11) > C23
Stuff like Multi-threading support, Improved Unicode support, Add memccpy() and whats so bad about Various syntax changes improve compatibility with C++? C doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you don't want learn the new changes or do not want rely on it because of compatibility reasons, I can understand. But why would you not use newer C versions, if there is no compatibility with older version "required"?
Who stopped using pthreads/windows threads for this?
Those who care use icu anyway.
First of all, π.
Secondly, it's a library feature, not a language one.
Thirdly, it existed forever in POSIX.
And lastly, good bait π.
It's bad because compiler implementations keep adding warnings and enabling them by default about completely valid usage that got "deprecated" or "removed" in "future versions of C" I will never use or give a fuck about. So my CI runs which all minimally have
-Wall -Werrorcan fail with a compiler upgrade for absolutely irrelevant stuff to me. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even know about these changes' existence, because I have zero interest in them.Those who like C++ should use C++ anyway. They can use the C+classes style if they like (spoiler alert: they already do).
Because C doesnβt exist in a vacuum, and Rust exists. Other choices exist too for those who don't like Rust.
My C projects are mature and have been in production for a long time. They are mostly maintenance only, with new minor features added not so often, and only after careful consideration.
^Still^ ^interested^ ^in^ ^knowing^ ^what^ ^relevant^ ^projects^ ^will^ ^be^ ^using^ ^C23.^
Newer than C99? Both the Linux kernel and systemd build with gnu11. I'd call those pretty relevant.
C23 is still far too new (still a draft) for any major projects that care about compiler compatibility.
Interesting. So they did it two years ago for the ~~lols~~.. i mean for the
u8"π"s*...which wasn't even really needed as one of the PR comments pointed out.* Yes, the mission creep is so bad the shit show that is
systemdhas emoticons.