Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers,alt.unix.geeks Subject: Re: What is wrong with C? (and fond memories of VAX) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:44:56 +0100 Lines: 45 Message-ID: <80ef3mxu5i.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> References: <10j9a1l$1toj$1@gal.iecc.com> <10j9vvr$23cp$2@gal.iecc.com> <10jb0is$172cb$2@dont-email.me> <679q2mx7o4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10jduat$22c54$1@dont-email.me> <10jelfq$2apo7$4@dont-email.me> <8pI6R.1243340$79B9.1051909@fx14.iad> <10jguou$341pn$1@nntp.eternal-september.org> <27cv2mx5fl.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <4Wc7R.1392895$ACS3.688415@fx17.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net CqxsTHIRlF9jrbLRa8+ydg1BY724F9z0mH6SCGr3PRH+wjMWKl X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:P4G60XTDHhWgckDtJxtuMeB2qE0= sha256:tKSbHNmK1CqB0VJIcBqekiPIBN9Lf5RQzEFqd8uIRv0= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80989 alt.folklore.computers:233560 alt.unix.geeks:209 On 2026-01-07 23:49, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:30:14 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-01-06 19:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2026-01-06, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> >>>> On 2026-01-06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> My C teacher said it was a mistake to use C as an all purpose >>>>> language, like for userland applications. Using C is the cause of >>>>> many bugs that a proper language would catch. >>>>> >>>>> That was around 1991. >>>>> >>>>> He knew. He participated in some study tasked by the Canadian >>>>> government to study C compilers, but he could not talk about what >>>>> they wrote. >>> >>> What language(s) did he suggest instead? >> >> I don't remember if he did. Maybe he told samples, but I think he mostly >> told us of quirks of the language, things that were errors, but that the >> compiler did not signal, so that we being aware we would write correct C >> code. >> >> It is possible that current C compilers signal many more problems that >> back then, but not runtime errors. > > gcc has become pickier. That isn't always a welcome thing when working > with legacy code and requires a search of the compiler options to get it > to shut up about such horrible heresies as assuming a function returns an > int. If the code were mine, I would correct the code. Even back then, I did not take the assumption that a function would return an integer :-D I wrote explicit prototypes in the header file. :-) If the code is not mine, I would use the compiler options instead. Unless I got paid to maintain that code, then I would correct the code. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;