Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Followup-To: comp.lang.c Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 01:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: <20220228172933.551@kylheku.com> References: <88f5394b-c1a1-4422-a20f-96e5511a178fn@googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 01:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="50e47e9e837187eddce4e8f72d2619a5"; logging-data="15974"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YcgtzCJVT0RUVZErD1lyx35qiYwnu/tg=" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z8kwED0wJuJKdPCFyFenBQhLUSo= Xref: csiph.com comp.programming.threads:7441 comp.lang.c:165066 On 2022-03-01, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. > > Sorry but you are wrong. There is more C code running out there than > anything else. Just about every real time system is running C. Linux > is totally written in C code. All engine management systems are running > C. Etc, etc, etc. None of that refutes "C is not modern". Quite the opposite; a language that is popular must be modern if, in spite of popularity, there isn't a lot of code written in it yet. Oceans of code tend to confirm lack of modernity. The statement is correct; C is not a modern language. The phrase "modern C" doesn't imply otherwise; it just refers to a dialect that is new relative to other dialects of C. Some things have been modernized due to some people's expectations that come from contact with other new things. In other respects, it's an oxymoron, like "modern Fortran". -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal