On 24.02.2020 14:03, Mouse wrote: >>>> It is now in C++ mainstream and already in C2x draft. >>> Then those are not suitable languages for OS implementations. >> This battle is lost for C > > C is not a language. C is a family of closely related languages. > If we tread C as gnu89 gnu99 gnu11 k&r etc this is true. > Some of them are suitable for OS implementation. It appears some of > the more recent ones are not, but this does not mean the older ones > also aren't. > From my perception the trend is inversed. Things that were undefined or unspecified in older revisions of C, are more clearly defined now. > Undefined behaviour as a way of describing differences between > implementations, things that it limits portability to depend on, is > useful. Undefined behaviour as a license-by-fiat for compilers to > unnecessarily transform code in unexpected ways is not. Software > languages and their compilers exist to serve their users, not the other > way around; it is not a compiler's place to take the position of "ha > ha, the code you wrote is clear but I can find a way to lawyer it into > formally undefined behaviour, so I'm going to transform it into > something I know damn well you didn't expect". > Please join the C committee as a voting member or at least submit papers with language changes. Complaining here won't change anything. (Out of people in the discussion, I am involved in wg14 discussions and submit papers.) >> RUST is better defined that C and is indeed used in OS development >> these days > > ...so? I don't see how this is related to the rest of the discussion. > As C is considered as not suitable for OS development, there is an escape plan, already with a successful story in this domain. > /~\ The ASCII Mouse > \ / Ribbon Campaign > X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost > / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature