Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: you think rust may outthrone c?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 03:02:14 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <87o7k8rzh5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <ebb9e01a-6369-4629-8b38-11d28df63693n@googlegroups.com> <u8u3ge$cscl$1@dont-email.me> <87sf9oye05.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <a189a8ff-5e91-43b7-9601-1f29b6a667bfn@googlegroups.com> <u90c0s$nr2u$1@dont-email.me> <0ff5dfe1-de32-4dae-872e-5401a3c04c97n@googlegroups.com> <u90u5r$pnad$1@dont-email.me> <87sf9niqb6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u923gr$tf08$1@dont-email.me> <u92mms$12tmp$1@dont-email.me> <5fbef78e-14f8-43c4-afaf-17fa5bad12bdn@googlegroups.com> <b54f60b1-6db7-4ecc-a1f6-b03c78c291een@googlegroups.com> <u94eb1$1c2vr$1@dont-email.me> <874jm2tbkt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <u94hip$1cdbp$1@dont-email.me> <87lefeukpy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u94pch$1dpd6$1@dont-email.me> <87edl6uf9y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u95rn3$1k9hq$1@dont-email.me> <87r0p4tyx4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c52e1506-b0a5-4e5b-99c0-5e79c5305a3an@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e77256f1ecfea9cd626451e3e82b5255"; logging-data="2210446"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XdmcS0Eeb0GrC9p2tsJVo"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Dfg264fAQnJyGP5TF60RKosk2c= sha1:tt7gEtSmMr5FCtwlFgSjn7hBfr4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:170898

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> For someone implementing a compiler, the language is defined by the standards
> document. But for someone who is not implementing a compiler, the language
> is ultimatelt defined by the behaviour of compilers.

I don't agree completely; I see the situation as more symmetric.
I see the standard as a proposed contract between implementers and
users.  Neither side is (usually) obligated to accept the contract,
but both sides can choose to do so, and can expect to be able to rely
on the other side to follow the rules.  Implementers can provide
non-standard extensions, and users can write code that depends on
those extensions.

An implementation that doesn't at least provide a mode that conforms
to the standard is going to be unpopular, and a programmer who
doesn't know what's guaranteed by the standard and what's specific
to an implementation will have a hard time if they ever want to
use a different implementation.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */