We had a very good discussion about this recently. Some people asked for
a full documentation. I have upload it to this URL:

http://www.q-software-solutions.de/~jacob/proposal.pdf

jacob

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:46:11 +0200, jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>
> We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]
>

Dear Jacob,

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)


K. H.

-- 

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<Punkt>de

Karl Heinze said:

<snip>
 
> Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
> current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
> sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

No, it's not sacrilege to propose improvements to C. In fact, the C 
community is so keen to see improvements to C that we have a whole 
newsgroup for it, which is called comp.std.c. If you want to improve C, 
that's the place to be, because that's where (some of) the ISO C movers 
and shakers hang out. *This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and 
C-as-it-was). *That* group discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a 
difficult distinction to grasp, surely?

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:22:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
>> current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
>> sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)
>>
> No, it's not sacrilege to propose improvements to C. In fact, the C 
> community is so keen to see improvements to C that we have a whole 
> newsgroup for it, which is called comp.std.c. If you want to improve C, 
> that's the place to be, because that's where (some of) the ISO C movers 
> and shakers hang out. *This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and 
> C-as-it-was). *That* group discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a 
> difficult distinction to grasp, surely?
>
Sounds reasonable. So poor Jacob just looms in the wrong group
(sometimes)?


K. H.

-- 

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<Punkt>de

Karl Heinze said:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:22:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> *This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and C-as-it-was). *That*
>> group [comp.std.c] discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a
>> difficult distinction to grasp, surely?
>>
> Sounds reasonable. So poor Jacob just looms in the wrong group
> (sometimes)?

Well, that's one of his issues, yes. But please let's not go there again 
right now - I've just eaten.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:14:03 +0200, Karl Heinze wrote:

[snip]
> I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
> this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
> might just be C 2008 (or whatever).
If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
before the late 2010s, if ever.

> Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
> current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
> sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

It is not sacrilege, it is OT. There's comp.std.c for that.
-- 
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")
No-one ever won a game by resigning. -- S. Tartakower

Army1987 wrote:
> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
> before the late 2010s, if ever.
> 

Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
C++.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
"The better C" will keep things as they are.

The committee has stated the same view that you say:

C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
doing C++.

C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
BETTER C!

jacob

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
> developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
> to compile C. 

What nonsense is this?

> C99 has been ignored by gcc 

Is this some attempt of sarcasm that I'm not catching due to your bad
colloquial English?

B.

jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 19:36:
> Army1987 wrote:
>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
> 
> Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
> C++.

You keep claiming people have said that, but you are the only one who 
posts that.

> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

Nope. Plenty of people are doing new developments in C.

> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C" will keep things as they are.

Nope, you are the one who keeps claiming people say that. It is not what 
people actually say.

> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
> 
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

No, they have said no new standard until whenever. That does not 
necessarily mean that DRs will not be answered to resolve errors, or TCs 
raised, or potentially even amendments.

> I am trying precisely to do the opposite.
> 
> I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
> basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
> developed now.

Only took me a minute to find some more, for instance http://www.htsoft.com/

> All others are C++ compilers that happen
> to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
> do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
> doing C++.

No, it has failed for other reasons that have been discussed.

> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
> BETTER C!

You know better than that. The gcc developers have definitely *not* 
ignored C99 and nor have the glibc developers. They have not *finished* 
implementing it, but then you had not finished last time you talked 
about the status of your compiler either. A few others have actually 
finished implementing C99.

Now will you stop claiming people have said things they have not said? 
There are places where your discussions about extensions would be 
topical as you well know having been pointed there several times.
-- 
Flash Gordon

jacob navia wrote:
> Army1987 wrote:
>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
>>
> 
> Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
> C++.
> 
> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

     In which case, WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?  We're old fossils,
Jacob, set in our ways, unable to understand or appreciate your
enlightened vision of the brighter future that is to be.  We
are beyond redemption, doomed to scrabble endlessly in the trash
middens of history.  Leave us to our misery, please, without
adding to it by lecturing us daily about how miserable we are.
It's unseemly to make a racket at a funeral, so leave us to mourn
unmocked.  Keep a sympathetic silence, or else GO AWAY!

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:14:03 +0200, Karl Heinze wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:46:11 +0200, jacob navia
> <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> 
>>
>> We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]
>>
> 
> Dear Jacob,
> 
> I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
> this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
> might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

Progress is good.


> Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
> current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
> sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

Nope.  They're very receptive to such ideas.  Thing is, this isn't the
group for them.  This is the group for discussing C _as it is_.  The group
for discussing C _as it could be_ - i.e. for proposing and evaluating
changes to the standard - is comp.std.c.

It is, if you will, the difference between genetics and breeding rabbits;
while rabbit breeding involves genetics, that doesn't mean discussing the
mating habits of our furry little friends belongs in a group devoted to
genetics - or vice-versa.  

Doesn't mean people aren't interested in both, just means they want to keep
the right discussions in the right places.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> Army1987 wrote:
>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
>> 
> 
> Yes. C is frozen forever.

If C90 led to C99, no reason C99 can't lead to C2010.  Nothing requires it
to be frozen.


> But that doesn't matter since we have C++.

Might as well say it doesn't matter since we have VB.  C++ isn't C.

> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

This explains the continued use of and interest in C, then.

> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C" will keep things as they are.

Really?  How odd.  I'm sure you'll back this up with some cites.  Cites of
rejections of actual improvements, as opposed to, say, Malcolm's oddball
notions of tossing size_t and inflicting 64-bit ints on everyone, things
which demonstrably fail to improve anything for anyone other than to
perhaps make him happy.

> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
> 
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

The C standard committee has said, explicitly, C won't change until 2019,
and by then C will be forgotten?  Presumably, then, there *is* no more C
standard committee, as this means any further efforts on their part are
completely futile.

> I think C is a language that needs small changes but is basically sound.

Indeed.  It is basically sound - apart from some issues brought in with
C99, ones which apparently make it nigh-on impossible to make a conforming
implementation.

> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.

When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007, they
were still actively working on it.

> All others are
> C++ compilers that happen to compile C.

"Happen to"?  No.  Even in cases where they are combined, they are
*designed* to compile C, they don't simply do so by happy accident.  At
least, this is true of the Gnu compiler.

> That is why C99 failed: the
> compiler writers do not see any C market since all C programmers should
> be doing C++.

I suspect it has more to do with the complexity of implementing C99.  
> 
> C99 has been ignored by gcc

News to me.  As of the first, I'm seeing C99-related discussions of gcc.

> and Microsoft because both organizations
> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE BETTER C!

Er, no, it's not.  It's C++, a different language.  As a supposed compiler
writer, you should know better.  Or was this some failed attempt at
sarcastic humour?

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:14:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Karl Heinze
<nomail@invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:46:11 +0200, jacob navia
><jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>> We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]
>>
>I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). 

Me too. 

>Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
>current standard) like a divine entity. 

Offensive rubbish aside, the topic of the group /is/ ANSI/ISO C you
know. 
-- 
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. 
 Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, 
 by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>Army1987 wrote:
>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
>> 
>
>Yes. C is frozen forever. 

No. But then there's no point discussing with you because you're
apparently an egomaniac. 
-- 
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. 
 Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, 
 by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Army1987 wrote:
>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
>
> Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
> C++.
>
> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.
>
> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C" will keep things as they are.

You keep spewing the same old nonsense.

Nobody here has said or implied that "C is frozen forever".  We just
don't want to discuss changes to the language *in this newsgroup*.
Changes to C can be, and frequently are, discussed in comp.std.c.  I
know you're aware of that newsgroup; you've posted there yourself.

People programming in C today need to have a place to discuss the C
language as it is currently defined and used.  If I'm trying to
implement something in C today, discussions about proposed future
changes to the language don't do me any good.  If I want to
participate in such discussions, I'll read comp.std.c.  (In fact, I
do.)

We don't discuss improvements to the Linux kernel in this newsgroup,
and if anyone did so, they'd be asked to take it to a more appropriate
newsgroup.  Does that mean that we think that the Linux kernel is
"frozen forever"?  Of course not, it's simply not what we discuss
here.

Why do you think the comp.std.c newsgroup exists?

> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
>
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

Please either prove that the committee, or any member of it, has said
that "C is dead", or retract this claim.

> I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

Good for you.  I applaud your efforts.  You just need to learn where
and how to propose changes.  For whatever reason (I won't speculate),
you seem to be unwilling and/or unable to learn this.

> I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
> basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
> developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
> to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
> do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
> doing C++.

The GNU C compiler is a counterexample, though perhaps not a strong
one.  gcc is a suite of compilers for multiple languages (C, C++,
Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, probably others).  Each compiler has its
own separate front-end, and uses the shared gcc back-end.

I thought that both lcc (as distinct from lcc-win32) and Pelles C were
both strictly C compilers.

> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
> BETTER C!

There may be some truth to that (that C99 hasn't caught on because
programmers who want something beyond C90 have moved to C++).  There's
also the fact that the C89 standard filled an urgent need to
standardize the language, whereas C99 merely introduced a new version
of an existing standard; probably a lot of programmers an implementers
felt that C89/C90 was good enough.

Personally, I'd like to see C99 catch on.  Since I'm not an
implementer, I'm not in a position to do anything about it.

If you were to finish implementing the standard features required by
the C99 standard, you just might help the standard to be adopted more
widely.  *After* that's happened, the community might be more
receptive to suggestions for new features beyond C99 (*if* you discuss
them in the right newsgroup, comp.std.c).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Kelsey Bjarnason said:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> 
<snip>
 
>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
> 
> When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
> they were still actively working on it.

They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever. 
In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim that 
lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C compiler 
("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source code. It 
lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites "static" and struct 
initialisation), but then he's only been working on it since late 
March, so that's understandable.

I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick 
perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to 
know what he's doing.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason said:
> 
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>  
>>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
>> When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
>> they were still actively working on it.
> 
> They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever. 
> In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim that 
> lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C compiler 
> ("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source code. It 
> lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites "static" and struct 
> initialisation), but then he's only been working on it since late 
> March, so that's understandable.
> 
> I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick 
> perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to 
> know what he's doing.
> 

Mysterious mysterious. No URL, google gives nothing about "bgb",
Sourceforge knows nothing about "bgb").

URL Maybe?

jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 23:33:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>  
>>>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
>>> When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
>>> they were still actively working on it.
>>
>> They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever. 
>> In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim 
>> that lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C 
>> compiler ("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source 
>> code. It lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites "static" 
>> and struct initialisation), but then he's only been working on it 
>> since late March, so that's understandable.
>>
>> I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick 
>> perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to 
>> know what he's doing.
> 
> Mysterious mysterious.

Not really. You were told the group and the approximate time. That makes 
it easy to find. Well, it only took me a few seconds.

> No URL, google gives nothing about "bgb",
> Sourceforge knows nothing about "bgb").
> 
> URL Maybe?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/browse_thread/thread/7abc415c506c7e7b/8a548d58ff1f605c#8a548d58ff1f605c
-- 
Flash Gordon

Karl Heinze wrote:
> jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> 
>> We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]
> 
> I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
> this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
> might just be C 2008 (or whatever).
> 
> Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
> current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
> sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

No, they simply point out that such discussions belong in
comp.std.c.  Not here.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Flash Gordon wrote:
> jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 23:33:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason said:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>  
>>>>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
>>>> When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
>>>> they were still actively working on it.
>>>
>>> They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as 
>>> ever. In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's 
>>> claim that lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a 
>>> new C compiler ("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full 
>>> source code. It lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites 
>>> "static" and struct initialisation), but then he's only been working 
>>> on it since late March, so that's understandable.
>>>
>>> I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick 
>>> perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to 
>>> know what he's doing.
>>
>> Mysterious mysterious.
> 
> Not really. You were told the group and the approximate time. That makes 
> it easy to find. Well, it only took me a few seconds.
> 
>> No URL, google gives nothing about "bgb",
>> Sourceforge knows nothing about "bgb").
>>
>> URL Maybe?
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/browse_thread/thread/7abc415c506c7e7b/8a548d58ff1f605c#8a548d58ff1f605c 
> 

Thanks.
This is the a strange thing indeed. It is curious that someone
that insists in gcc -pedantic doesn't get bothered that a C
compiler accepts "string" and "list" as a keyword. But anyway
maybe I am wrong because the source code is a mix of another
project (a lisp nterpreter code?) and some C compiler stuff and
some other languages that I am not sure I can really
classify.

Anyway, thanks for the URL, and I am sure Mr Heathfield will tell
us more about this great compiler soon.

jacob

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
[...]
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
[...]
>>>> They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as
>>>> ever. In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's
>>>> claim that lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a
>>>> new C compiler ("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with
>>>> full source code. It lacks one or two features as yet (the author
>>>> cites "static" and struct initialisation), but then he's only been
>>>> working on it since late March, so that's understandable.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very)
>>>> quick perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author
>>>> seems to know what he's doing.
[...]
> This is the a strange thing indeed. It is curious that someone
> that insists in gcc -pedantic doesn't get bothered that a C
> compiler accepts "string" and "list" as a keyword. But anyway
> maybe I am wrong because the source code is a mix of another
> project (a lisp nterpreter code?) and some C compiler stuff and
> some other languages that I am not sure I can really
> classify.

I see nothing strange about it.  Richard explicitly said that (a) it's
not a fully conforming C compiler, and (b) he hadn't looked closely at
it.

> Anyway, thanks for the URL, and I am sure Mr Heathfield will tell
> us more about this great compiler soon.

He's under no obligation to do so.  His point was merely to refute
your claim that "Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed
now".  Do you continue to stand by that claim?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in comp.lang.c:

> Army1987 wrote:
> > If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
> > widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
> > before the late 2010s, if ever.
> > 
> 
> Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
> C++.

Languages such as C++, Java, C#, scripting languages, and many others,
have tended to narrow the range of applications programmed in C.  It
seems unlikely to me that any large scale development organization
would start a brand new application with 100K or more LOC in C today.

So be it, there are two application areas where C still reigns.

The first is the one it was originally designed for, system
programming.  You will get flamed in C++ groups if you suggest that
one couldn't completely rewrite UNIX or even Windows completely in
C++, but in the real world C is the language in which operating
systems are written.

The second is one that Brian Kernighan probably never gave much
thought to, embedded systems.  Not too surprising, when you put it in
historical perspective.  The earliest versions of C preceded the Intel
8080, the first true microprocessor, by several years.

The single largest category of processors in existence are those in
cell phones, mostly ARM derivatives of one sort or another.  The
execute code written in C, and applications written in Java.  The
earlier versions used a software JVM written in C.  Newer ARM versions
actually have a hardware partial JVM, so only part of the Java is
executed by an interpreter written in C.

> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

This is so absurd, the real problem is that you don't have the
faintest idea of 90% or more of the development in C.  Despite your
constant complaints of the narrow vision of the C community, or at
least of the regulars in comp.lang.c, you completely fail to realize
that most of the C development happening today has nothing at all to
do with desktop computers.

If you reworded your statement above as, "All new desktop application
developments are done in C++", it would still be wrong.  Do some
research, I think you will find that in total the use of Java, C#,
managed C++, Ruby on Rails, and a few others greatly out weigh the use
of C++.

On the other hand, if you said, "Almost no new desktop developments
are done in C", I would say you are absolutely correct.

The vast majority of C development these days is not in desktops or
servers, not even in hosted environments at all, and note that an OS
kernel is generally not itself a hosted environment, although it
provides a hosted environment to applications running on it.

In fact, a large percentage of C development these days is done on
non-conforming implementations that only implement part of the
language.  Most implementations for 8-bit targets do not provide
floating point types at all, or only a single precision type.  Most
16-bit implementations, and even some 32-bit implementations, don't
support a floating point type that meets the minimum requirements for
a double.

You are carrying on here about extending C, making it a bigger and
more powerful language, and complaining that posters here are not very
sympathetic to your aims.

But you're not even talking to the audience that is paying real money
for new C compilers today.

Go ask on groups like comp.arch.embedded, comp.sys.arm, and comp.dsp,
and see if the C programmers in that group would place a high value on
extending C with operator and function overloading.

> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C" will keep things as they are.

There are advantages to keeping the language small, simple, and
efficient.  There are many other languages, many of them more complex
and more feature rich.  Why do you think C needs to emulate their
features?  Why not pick a language for a task that has the best match
of features?

> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
> 
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

Can you provide a link to a statement to this effect from any member
of the committee?

> I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

No, you are trying to add features to C.  Whether or not your
particular choice of features are improvements is a matter of your
opinion.

> I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
> basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
> developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
> to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
> do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
> doing C++.

Indeed, there are many small changes that could be made to improve C,
not just a few.  The question is whether or not the particular
extensions that you propose are among those "small changes".  At a
philosophical level, there are differences between "improvements" and
"extensions".

As for your statement "Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now", see http://www.christian-heffner.de/  The most recent
release of Pelles C was April 4, 2007.

> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
> BETTER C!

This is quite poor logic on you part, and some gross inaccuracies.

Microsoft is most specifically not promoting C++ these days, they are
promoting C# and preferring, if C++ must be used at all, that one use
their "Managed C++", an abomination that they rammed into an ISO
standard through a back door, the same one they are trying to use now
to define their own proprietary "open standard" document format.

The logical fall icy is the unfounded leap to from the fact that the C
community is suspicious of one person's ideas of additions to the
language to the conclusion that the C community, or anyone else other
than the C++ community, maintains that C++ is a better C.

Personally, I like the fact that you provide your compiler for free
download and use, and I have installed and used various versions over
time.  And it is an excellent way to try out proposed
changes/extensions/additions to the language, for later proposal for
inclusion to the standard.  Proposals with actual working
implementations stand a much better chance of serious consideration.

But it is not gracious, at the very least, to launch tirades at those
who don't share your vision for the direction that future extensions
should move C.

-- 
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

Flash Gordon wrote:
> jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 19:36:
>
.... snip ...
> 
>> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
>> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
>> BETTER C!
> 
> You know better than that. The gcc developers have definitely *not*
> ignored C99 and nor have the glibc developers. They have not *finished*
> implementing it, but then you had not finished last time you talked
> about the status of your compiler either. A few others have actually
> finished implementing C99.
> 
> Now will you stop claiming people have said things they have not said?
> There are places where your discussions about extensions would be
> topical as you well know having been pointed there several times.

Actually I just took a look at
<http://http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/c99status.html> and am
pleasantly surprised at the extent to which gcc has adapted.  The
hard thing, at some point, will be replacing all the system
libraries.  What is missing will not affect the majority of
programs IMO.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:10:45 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

>
> His point was merely to refute your claim that "Lcc-win32 is the only *C* 
> compiler being developed now".  Do you continue to stand by that claim?
>

See:
http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/


K. H.

-- 

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<Punkt>de

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>
> Yes. C is frozen forever.
>
Well, at least it's present state (and it's near future) looks rather
bad... :-(

Incredible: In 2007 gcc still is not fully C99 conforming! :-(

>
> All new developments are done in C++ [...]
>
Right, C++0x is already underway...

>
> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C"
>
	You mean C++?
>
> will keep things as they are.
>
> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
>
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. 
>
Is this really true? :-(

But, on the other hand, maybe those people are right? Maybe C++ IS the
better C? (I mean, nobody can FORCE you to use the object oriented
stuff in C++, right?)

>
> I am trying precisely to do the opposite.
>
Right.

>
> I think C is a language that needs small changes ...
>
Clearly /references/ (especially in connection with function calls)
would be a good thing in C.

>
> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now. 
> All others are C++ compilers that happen to compile C.
>
Ehem... And what's with Pelles-C?! (Though it's also a LCC descendant
it's certainly in no way related to lcc-win32.)

See:
http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

>
> That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers do not see any C 
> market since all C programmers should be doing C++.
>
I guess, you are right.


K. H.

-- 

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<Punkt>de

On 3 sep, 20:36, jacob navia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> Army1987 wrote:
> > If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
> > widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
> > before the late 2010s, if ever.
>
> Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
> C++.

C and C++ are very different and do not target the same things except
maybe efficiency.

> All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

After 12 years of C++, I have decided to go back to C. This might be
uncommon, but I had (and still have) very good reasons to do so.

> Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
> "The better C" will keep things as they are.

I see the "C Object System" as an extension (in the sens of CLOS for
Common Lisp) which lifts C to the level of other recent OO languages
(at least). It offers an incredible flexibility (with reasonable
efficiency) that I haven't found in any other language (amongst about
10 languages). The fact that it's only a library shows that C has
already great possibilities by itself. BTW a new (much cleaner C89,
aka 0.8) version will come soon ;-)

> The committee has stated the same view that you say:
>
> C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
> until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.
>
> I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

I read your proposal, but most of what you propose is more related to
library extension than language extension. I think that C programmers
are trained to rewrite their own lib instead of using broken
implementation (see "C interfaces and implementations"). I observed
that experienced programmer are more sensitive to language features
(orthogonal, clean, non-ambiguous, simple, ...) than libraries, Java
being a good example of the impact of this point of view.

> I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
> basically sound.

I agree. But once these small changes (this list needs a concensus!)
are done, I would prefer something stable and widely available than
"yet another incomplete/broken implementation". Simplification of the
standard would probably help to get stable implementation.

> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
> developed now.

comp.lang.misc just annouced a new C compiler...

> All others are C++ compilers that happen
> to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
> do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
> doing C++.

Still, most portable libraries are written in C and most languages
have a FFI for C, not C++.

> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
> BETTER C!

gcc team made many proposals for language extension and some of them
are rather nice. I have recently seen the proposal for _Alias which I
find more elegant than overloading by name mangling (more in the
philosophy of C) and I suggested the author to extend it to operators.
That would be nice!

a+, ld.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:10:18 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> 
>> Army1987 wrote:
>>> If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
>>> widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
>>> before the late 2010s, if ever.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes. C is frozen forever.
> 
> If C90 led to C99, no reason C99 can't lead to C2010.  Nothing requires it
> to be frozen.

I think that C90 was much more widely implemented in 1999 than C99
will be in 2010. Though "frozen forever" is way too pessimistic
IMO.

>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
>> All others are
>> C++ compilers that happen to compile C.
> 
> "Happen to"?  No.  Even in cases where they are combined, they are
> *designed* to compile C, they don't simply do so by happy accident.  At
> least, this is true of the Gnu compiler.
Indeed. A compiler where
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
    printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof 'A');
#ifndef __cplusplus
    puts("Ha Ha!");
#endif
    return 0;
}
displays a number greater than one, a newline, "Ha Ha!", and
another newline is not a C++ compiler. At least, it is not *just*
a C++ compiler. It may well be *also* a C++ compiler, but that is
no more relevant that the fact that gcc (GNU Compiler Collection)
is also a Fortran compiler.

-- 
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")
No-one ever won a game by resigning. -- S. Tartakower

[snips]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:21:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason said:
> 
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>> 
> <snip>
>  
>>> Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.
>> 
>> When did gnu stop working on theirs?  Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
>> they were still actively working on it.
> 
> They are not the only ones; 

Oh, I didn't mean to imply they were; they were simply a quick and easy
disproof of his claim.

> Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever.
> In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim that
> lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C compiler
> ("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source code.

Yeah, well, lcc-win32 or bust, right?  Anything to sell another copy.

CBFalconer wrote, On 04/09/07 02:02:
> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 19:36:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
>>> promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
>>> BETTER C!
>> You know better than that. The gcc developers have definitely *not*
>> ignored C99 and nor have the glibc developers. They have not *finished*
>> implementing it, but then you had not finished last time you talked
>> about the status of your compiler either. A few others have actually
>> finished implementing C99.
>>
>> Now will you stop claiming people have said things they have not said?
>> There are places where your discussions about extensions would be
>> topical as you well know having been pointed there several times.
> 
> Actually I just took a look at
> <http://http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/c99status.html> and am

That should have been http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/c99status.html

> pleasantly surprised at the extent to which gcc has adapted.  The
> hard thing, at some point, will be replacing all the system
> libraries.  What is missing will not affect the majority of
> programs IMO.

If you look at http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html you will find they are 
still *slowly* making progress. It would be nice if they progressed 
faster, but at least there is sign of progress.
-- 
Flash Gordon

jacob navia wrote:
> We had a very good discussion about this recently. Some people asked for
> a full documentation. I have upload it to this URL:
> 
> http://www.q-software-solutions.de/~jacob/proposal.pdf
> 
> jacob

I have posted parts of that document to comp.std.c