Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #168234
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why is glibc not extensive? |
| Date | 2022-11-17 17:04 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <871qq1tsvr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <c8037c65-2272-4e73-abba-22c06d6f9a90n@googlegroups.com> <tl5bi5$laf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <62490c42-3d22-4386-ba2c-09aaf49eb1a5n@googlegroups.com> |
A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 18:35:22 UTC+5:30, Bart wrote: >> On 17/11/2022 06:31, Amit wrote: >> >> Anyway a lot of your suggestions really demand generic solutions, and C >> doesn't have generic types. For those, there are myriad more assorted >> ways to add those to C, but the results are usually ungainly and painful >> to use. >> >> C is just not suited for such things. > > Generics can be implemented in C without much hassle. The code you posted shows that it really is quite a lot of hassle. > I am currently implementing C++ STL in C. And the my data structures > are generic - any type of data can be used just like in C++ STL. C++ containers have type checking and automatic destruction both of which are big wins. Why not use C++ rather than try to write a poor man's STL in C? -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why is glibc not extensive? Amit <amitchoudhary0523@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 22:31 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-11-17 13:05 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 05:18 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 05:24 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-11-17 13:57 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-11-17 17:04 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 09:32 +0100
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 02:32 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 13:09 +0100
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 04:47 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 13:59 +0100
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? A <amit234234234234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 05:27 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-11-18 17:04 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-21 08:50 +0100
Bart (Was: Why is glibc not extensive?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-11-21 14:14 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-21 08:10 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-11-26 09:07 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-26 16:11 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2022-11-27 13:05 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 12:20 -0600
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-11-27 21:13 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 21:53 -0600
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-03 01:17 -0800
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 15:11 -0600
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 19:05 +0100
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-11-18 08:09 +0000
Re: Why is glibc not extensive? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 13:55 -0600
csiph-web