Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c > #1541

Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11?

Show all headers | View raw

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 18/08/12 22:48, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> I wrote:
>>> o Microsoft doesn't like the C language at all. Let's close shop then.
>>> >    Microsoft may have a point. There is no need for a C committee if we
>>> >    have Microsoft.
>>> >
>>> >    WHAT?
>>> >
>>> >    You are again MICROSOFT, the software giant? You must be nuts.
>
> Then Mr Thompson answered:
>
>> This isn't about anybody being against anybody.
>
> That's your opinion. I am definitely against the policy of microsoft
> of degrading the support of standard C and against their opinion
> that is they that rule what windows users should use as a language.

I'm not disputing your opinion.  I actually agree with much of it.
I'm suggesting that *this discussion* isn't about being for or
against Microsoft policies.

>> Microsoft exists
>
> I am not denying that... :-)
>
>> and
>> is significant.
>
> I am just denying that. 640K should be OK for everyone said someone
> years ago. No, that opinion wasn't significant even if microsoft was
> a software giant then. For me having a lot of money doesn't make you 
> right, sorry. You snipped all other arguments (declarations at any
> place, making the whole standard C library "deprecated") how convenient
> for you.

I snipped things that I wasn't commenting on, either because I agreed
with them or because I just didn't have anything to say about them.
Inferring some ulterior motive from that is a mistake.

Are you under the impression that I *approve* of Microsoft not
supporting mixed declarations and statements in C and deprecrating
some functions in the standard C library?  If so, please indicate
when and where I said that so I can clarify it.

The fact that you and I both happen to disagree with certain
Microsoft policies does not imply that Microsoft is insignificant.

For the record, I would prefer it if Microsoft would fully support
C99 in its C compiler, and fully support C11 as soon as practical.
But since I don't run Microsoft, and am only barely a Microsoft user,
I don't get a vote.  They make decisions for both technical and
financial reasons; they've made the business decision to concentrate
their resources on C++ rather than C.

Please stop mistaking my statement about what they've done for
agreement with it.

>> There are other C compilers for Windows, but using
>> one of them may not be an option for some projects (for example,
>> management might insist on using only Microsoft development tools).
>
> And so what?
>
> If management insists on using "MICROSOFT ONLY" why should be
> declare that ALL OTHERS even those users that do not use Microsoft
> (Apple programmers, iOS programmers, Android programmers,
> Sun programmers, and a VERY long list) should have a language
> that is defined by Microsoft?

Where on Earth are you getting this?

I did not say or imply that all users should be limited to what
Microsoft supports.  What I said, which you actually quoted, was:

>> Conclusion:*some*  C programmers (those who need to use Microsoft
>> C compilers) are unable to use most C99 and C11 features.

*Some* C programmers.  Those who *need* to use Microsoft C compilers.
What is unclear about that?

(At my previous job, we used Microsoft's compiler.  Using a different
compiler was not an option, at least not for me.  It was C++ and C#,
not C, so it's not *entirely* relevant, but there are programmers
who have no choice but to use Microsoft development environments.
This is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact.)

> Life is tough when you have to use Microsoft, I know. But if life
> is tough for people using Microsoft, at least do not generalize and
> make it tough for everyone!

I don't.

>> I don't
>> like it any more than you do, but sarcasm isn't going to change it --
>> and it may be quite relevant to this discussion.

[snip]

> The committee tried to please Microsoft and declared VLA's optional.

Has someone on the committee actually said that it was done to please
Microsoft?  If so, I missed it -- which is exactly why I started this
discussion.  My hope is that someone *on the C committee* will explain
why VLAs were made optional in C11.

[snip]

Incidentally, there was an lcc-win bug report in my previous article.
Did you see it?  Would you like me to resubmit it through other
channels?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-17 15:42 -0700
  Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-18 01:19 +0200
    Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-17 16:23 -0700
      Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-18 10:12 +0200
    Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-17 21:04 -0700
      Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-18 05:34 +0000
        Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-17 23:07 -0700
          Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-18 08:29 +0000
            Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-18 09:37 -0700
              Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2012-08-19 02:27 +0000
            Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-18 17:49 +0000
      Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-18 08:32 +0200
      Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-18 02:50 -0700
      Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-18 14:33 +0200
        Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-18 13:23 +0000
        Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-18 13:48 -0700
          Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-18 23:31 +0200
            Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-18 18:14 -0700
              Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-19 09:38 +0200
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-19 03:07 -0700
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-19 12:29 +0200
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-19 10:38 -0700
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-19 13:14 -0700
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-19 13:59 -0700
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Owen Shepherd <nntp@owenshepherd.net> - 2012-08-27 22:17 +0100
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:34 +0200
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-27 19:36 -0700
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:54 -0400
                Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-27 22:39 -0700
        Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? "pdx_scooter@yahoo.com" <pdx_scooter@yahoo.com> - 2022-10-01 13:15 -0700
          Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-01 14:33 -0700
          Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Tomasz Stanislawski <stanislawski.tomasz@googlemail.com> - 2023-01-25 04:21 -0800
  Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-17 20:54 -0400
  Re: Why are VLAs optional in C11? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-17 20:56 -0700

csiph-web