Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: C types, was What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 07:40:15 -0800 (PST) Organization: Compilers Central Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <22-12-019@comp.compilers> References: <22-12-001@comp.compilers> <22-12-003@comp.compilers> <22-12-004@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="76370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: types, history Posted-Date: 10 Dec 2022 16:29:52 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <22-12-004@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3264 On Saturday, 3 December 2022 at 22:52:17 UTC, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > Instead weird constructs like > "long long" for int64_t have been introduced, while "int int" stays > equivalent to "int". (Sorry, not following this thread till I noticed "long long" :-) ) Another feature C's pinched off Algol 68? (When I designed and partly-implemented a language in 2006, I called my types "s8", "u8", "s16", and "u16". (That's as far as I got.) From nearly 40 years of C programming, I've concluded that having "int" be the "natural" size of integer is more of a liability than an asset.)