Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: C extensions |
| Date | 2015-07-09 22:18 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mnndfi$r80$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <92323dc9-2741-4d39-ac07-6bc513114aaa@googlegroups.com> <559B0529.6010002@verizon.net> <f904eba4-a57e-49f3-8b50-3ed068695913@googlegroups.com> <3e6b89d6-6f27-4416-806e-da3fa10b801e@googlegroups.com> <590c3e33-2baf-46cc-9111-2e9126509ebb@googlegroups.com> |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:39:37 PM UTC+1, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> >> I look at things from the end-user's (developer's) point of view, >> and ask myself, "Would this help developers?" >> >> It's why I place value on things like a memprintf() without a >> trailing null. It won't help everybody, but there are several >> returned questions relating to this on a google search. And I >> bet there are many more who tried and just abandoned it and >> wrote their own using a copy-buffer solution if they needed >> content without the trailing null. >> > That's my objection to a lot of new language features. > > They're put in because they're relatively easy for a compiler writer to > add, but they don't actually catch many of the bugs that cause > deep-seated problem in real code. For example, boost has a souped-up > printf() that does checking of types. It's easy enough to accidentally pass > an int to "%f". But, almost always, the developer looks at the output > shortly after writing the code, in an informal test. It's obvious that the > output is garbage, and the bug is caught. We don't rurally need the > extra safety, and if means that the code is hard to read, then it's going > to cause other errors to be uncaught. > Well said. -- Les Cargill
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 13:45 -0700
Re: C extensions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-06 21:59 +0100
Re: C extensions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-06 18:59 -0500
Re: C extensions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 15:54 +1200
Re: C extensions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-06 21:05 -0700
Re: C extensions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 17:52 +1200
Re: C extensions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:24 -0500
Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-06 18:46 -0400
Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:20 -0700
Re: C extensions "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:39 -0700
Re: C extensions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-09 05:41 -0700
Re: C extensions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-07-09 22:18 -0500
Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-07 12:25 -0400
Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:28 -0700
Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 12:24 -0400
Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 09:25 -0700
Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-09 14:27 -0400
Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:04 -0700
Re: C extensions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-07 14:59 +0200
csiph-web