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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #71222 > unrolled thread

Re: Spurious diagnostic messages

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 08:51 -0700
    Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 12:01 +1300
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 09:24 -0700
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:32 +1300

#71222 — Re: Spurious diagnostic messages

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [snip]

I read through the other comments, and wanted to respond just
to those below.

>> In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to
>> the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would
>> agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community.
>
> Many of the recent additions reduce complexity.  That was one of the
> aims of C++11 and c++14 goes further.

I'm glad to hear that was a consideration, and tentatively amend
my previous statement accordingly.  Of course it may still be the
case that C++ is overly complicated, but that's a separate issue
which I think is better left alone in the context of the current
discussion.

> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard
> like we see here in C++ forums.  The C++ community embraces the new
> standards because they give us what we have been asking for.

C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C
standard for a variety of reasons.  It is partly in recognition
of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what
additions or changes are made.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#71238

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard
>> like we see here in C++ forums.  The C++ community embraces the new
>> standards because they give us what we have been asking for.
>
> C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C
> standard for a variety of reasons.  It is partly in recognition
> of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what
> additions or changes are made.

Isn't that argument self-contradictory?

If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely accepted 
and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing modern C 
or portable C.  The two would be the same.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71821

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard
>>> like we see here in C++ forums.  The C++ community embraces the new
>>> standards because they give us what we have been asking for.
>>
>> C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C
>> standard for a variety of reasons.  It is partly in recognition
>> of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what
>> additions or changes are made.
>
> Isn't that argument self-contradictory?

It doesn't seem contradictory to me.  Recognizing that there
will be somewhat large time overlaps where multiple versions
of the standard are being used, I think it's understandable
and reasonable to follow a path of evolving the language
slowly.  In particular WG14 is very reluctant to make changes
that would alter the semantics of existing code.

> If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely
> accepted and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing
> modern C or portable C.  The two would be the same.

I don't think this implication follows, because there are lots of
different forces affecting the decision to move to a new version
of the language, not just how much the language has changed.  But
in any case I believe you are using "more conservative" here in
a different sense than I was.  I meant only that WG14 is more
conservative than the corresponding group for C++.  That still
leaves a lot of room to change the language significantly (if
that is what is thought appropriate).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71932

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard
>>>> like we see here in C++ forums.  The C++ community embraces the new
>>>> standards because they give us what we have been asking for.
>>>
>>> C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C
>>> standard for a variety of reasons.  It is partly in recognition
>>> of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what
>>> additions or changes are made.
>>
>> Isn't that argument self-contradictory?
>
> It doesn't seem contradictory to me.  Recognizing that there
> will be somewhat large time overlaps where multiple versions
> of the standard are being used, I think it's understandable
> and reasonable to follow a path of evolving the language
> slowly.  In particular WG14 is very reluctant to make changes
> that would alter the semantics of existing code.

Something binary literals wouldn't do...

I agree evolving the language slowly is the best approach, but this 
wasn't what happened with C99: it was too big a change for many 
conservative users to accept.

>> If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely
>> accepted and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing
>> modern C or portable C.  The two would be the same.
>
> I don't think this implication follows, because there are lots of
> different forces affecting the decision to move to a new version
> of the language, not just how much the language has changed.  But
> in any case I believe you are using "more conservative" here in
> a different sense than I was.  I meant only that WG14 is more
> conservative than the corresponding group for C++.  That still
> leaves a lot of room to change the language significantly (if
> that is what is thought appropriate).

A significant factor affecting the decision to move to a new version of 
the language is vendor support.

WG14 may be more conservative than WG21, but that didn't help them to 
produce a universally accepted standard...

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web