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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #5343

Re: // at beginning of line

Show all headers | View raw

In message <94qcg5F4saU1@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins <ian-
news@hotmail.com> writes
>On 06/ 2/11 10:35 PM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message<is7nst$vr5$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net>  writes
>>> On 06/02/2011 03:40 AM, Chris H wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> it. The job of ISO standards is to standardise what the industry is
>>>> doing not go off on flights of fancy which is why virtually no one fully
>>>> implements C99 over a decade on.
>>>>
>>>> In fact if C12 comes out on time C99 will be the standard that never
>>>> was.
>>>
>>> That relies upon the assumption that C12 will be adopted substantially
>>> faster than C99.
>>
>> It can't be slower!
>>
>>> I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if compilers improve their
>>> conformance with C12 during 2013 even more slowly than they improve
>>> their conformance with C99, and that will continue to be the case for
>>> many years thereafter.
>>
>> You would hope that the ISO team learnt their lesson from C99 and only
>> added things to C12 that the *industry* wanted ie things the compiler
>> vendors already wanted to add. And made optional thing the majority were
>> never going to add.
>
>I hope they do.  Because programmers want them, several major C++
>compilers are already offer most of the features in the upcoming C++0x
>standard.

That is the way it should be.

My worry is they will try and move C closer to C++.  A vast amount of C
is in the embedded area on 8-128 bit systems where they don't want C++
(4 bit systems are still used but usually in assembler)

C and C++ are separate languages and should be kept that way. People who
want the features of C++ can use C++ not fit them to C  otherwise the
vast majority of the C compilers will not follow the new standard.

I don't mind if the move C++ closer to C to remove the differences but
not the other way around.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

Thread

// at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-01 19:44 +0000
  Re: // at beginning of line Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-01 12:48 -0700
  Re: // at beginning of line Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 19:55 +0000
    Re: // at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-01 20:46 +0000
      Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 13:54 -0700
        Re: // at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-02 19:34 +0000
          Re: // at beginning of line Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-02 12:38 -0700
          Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 13:13 -0700
      Re: // at beginning of line Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 20:59 +0000
  Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 12:56 -0700
    Re: // at beginning of line Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-01 23:06 -0700
      Re: // at beginning of line Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-02 07:15 +0000
        Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 08:40 +0100
          Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 06:15 -0400
            Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 11:35 +0100
              Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 07:58 -0400
              Re: // at beginning of line Lorenzo Villari <vlllnz@tiscali.it> - 2011-06-02 15:18 +0200
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 14:59 +0100
              Re: // at beginning of line Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 09:09 +1200
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-03 09:40 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 20:51 +1200
                Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:57 -0400
                Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 12:54 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-03 13:27 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 09:42 -0700
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-05 17:27 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 12:35 -0700
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-06 09:27 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-06 09:29 -0700
                Re: // at beginning of line Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-06 14:37 -0400
                Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 23:16 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-05 17:28 +0100
                Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-06 22:39 +0100
  Re: // at beginning of line Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 23:05 -0500
  Re: // at beginning of line Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 13:34 -0400

csiph-web