Thread: Which features would you like to see in future implementations of the C language?

Which features would you like to see in future implementations of the C language?

Links beneath are PDFs by the ISO/IEC Working group:

- Embedded C extensions
- New character types
- Safer C library functions
- Decimal floating point support

How about internationalization features that don't feel like they were thrown together in ten minutes and then patched onto the language with duct tape and bubble gum? How about time and space complexity requirements for library algorithms? How about standard data structure libraries so we don't have to keep rolling our own or using third party libraries?

A neat, easy and improved rand function

>A neat, easy and improved rand function
rand is already neat and easy, so what were you thinking of for "improved"? Most of the problems come from people who don't know how to use it correctly, not from any inherent flaws in the standard definition. Besides, it's hard to set requirements for a random number algorithm without specifying the algorithm you want by name.

>in fact c language (embedded exempt) should be made obsolete (depreciated)
It would be a real shame if this happened. It's a good thing the people who could make it happen have a somewhat more reasonable perspective.

Sounds like Brother is making a new C compiler and trying to rectify the problem faced in current compiler

Originally Posted by Prelude

in fact c language (embedded exempt) should be made obsolete (depreciated)
It would be a real shame if this happened. It's a good thing the people who could make it happen have a somewhat more reasonable perspective.

Right now two nearly identical languages are being supported. C++ can do everything that C can do, so why have this duplication? Any C program can be compiled by most c++ compilers with only minor changes, such as typcasting malloc() and other functions that return void*. There should be NO new programs written in C.

Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon

don't need any new features -- in fact c language (embedded exempt) should be made obsolete (depreciated).

cwr: if you want templates then use c++.

I prefer C over C++. And I think cwr meant that it would be nice if a few of the useful C++ features were brought over to C without the rest of the crap that makes up the language.

Just because computers are faster these days doesn't mean lower-level languages should be ousted. What will you say when embedded systems become more powerful? It should be "depreciated" for those systems too?

Like Prelude said, I'm glad someone else is in charge of the decision-making process.

Personally, I like C the way it is. The simpler the better IMHO.

>C++ can do everything that C can do, so why have this duplication?
C++ can do everything that C can do, and it can do more...a lot more. I use about 80% of C on a regular basis, but less than 10% of C++. There's no point in using a language that includes everything that you'll never use when you have another language that does everything you need without all of the fluff. Small is beautiful, but C++ advocates don't seem to get that. Oh well, it's not like I'll convince you otherwise. Such is the way with subjective opinions.

Like I said, I'm glad you're not calling the shots or everything older than Java would be "depreciated" even though the best languages are the older ones.

>C++ is OO, it has a lot more overhead than C.
Only if you ask for it. If C++ had as much overhead as you suggest, then nobody would have moved from C to C++. I haven't had overhead problems since using a rather old version of Borland that couldn't manage to output decent object code.

>If you need code that runs quickly, or uses very little memory, etc, C++ won't be much good.
Maybe you have a crappy compiler. C++ is comparable to C when I'm writing for performance or under space constraints.

Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon

don't need any new features -- in fact c language (embedded exempt) should be made obsolete (depreciated).

cwr: if you want templates then use c++.

You are a template.

Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon

Right now two nearly identical languages are being supported. C++ can do everything that C can do, so why have this duplication? Any C program can be compiled by most c++ compilers with only minor changes, such as typcasting malloc() and other functions that return void*. There should be NO new programs written in C.

Fascinating. But what was the entire point of this post? To sum up what you just said "C++ can do everything C can do since C++ compilers can generally compile C so that means that C is depricated and should be shot into oblivion." I don't see what relevence compilers have to whether or not a language should be officially set aside for retirement. Saying "C++ compilers compile most C" isn't a compelling arguement.

Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon

I'm suggesting is to throw out something called "C language" and "C compilers" because there is little, or no, need for them any more. They are just old dinosaurs left over from the 80's and earlier.

Once again you don't back up WHY it should be thrown out other than "it's old," Assembly is a gazillion times older than C but I don't hear you preaching for it's destruction. What about FORTRAN or COBOL? Why shouldn't they be thrown out? Why purpose do they fufill that C doesn't that is inexorably more important? If you're going to use age as an arguement you might as well be fair.



If you would post with a freaking half-way logical arguement that doesn't point out every little idiosyncrasy (like a dick would) in the C language or use "it's old" in it or any relations thereof, then maybe you'd be taken more reasonably.

Originally Posted by Prelude

>C++ is OO, it has a lot more overhead than C.
Only if you ask for it. If C++ had as much overhead as you suggest, then nobody would have moved from C to C++. I haven't had overhead problems since using a rather old version of Borland that couldn't manage to output decent object code.

>If you need code that runs quickly, or uses very little memory, etc, C++ won't be much good.
Maybe you have a crappy compiler. C++ is comparable to C when I'm writing for performance or under space constraints.

Code:

itsme@itsme:~/C$ cat helloworld.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
  puts("Hello, world!");

  return 0;
}
itsme@itsme:~/C$ gcc -Wall helloworld.c -o helloworld
itsme@itsme:~/C$ ls -l helloworld
-rwxr-xr-x  1 itsme users 10563 2005-10-19 10:16 helloworld*
itsme@itsme:~/C$ ./helloworld
Hello, world!
itsme@itsme:~/C$ cd ../C++
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ cat helloworld.cpp
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main(void)
{
  cout << "Hello, world!" << endl;

  return 0;
}
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ g++ -Wall helloworld.cpp -o helloworld
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ ls -l helloworld
-rwxr-xr-x  1 itsme users 12789 2005-10-19 10:17 helloworld*
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ ./helloworld
Hello, world!
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.4/configure --with-arch=athlon
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.4
itsme@itsme:~/C++$ g++ -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.4/configure --with-arch=athlon
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.4
itsme@itsme:~/C++$

A 17.4% increase in file size seems pretty significant. I'm sure it's not the same for all applications, but in general I've noticed that C++ compiled programs that accomplish the same thing as a C program tend to be larger.