[3chelon]

Well... the declaration you cited resolves down to a pointer to a wide integer. Part of C's simplicity is its small number of keywords, many of which have become way too overloaded as architectures have grown more advanced. The keywords were decided in the 1970s, when address spaces were 16 bits at the most. The ability to create type aliases with `typedef` has added to this apparent complexity, and this has been abused by compiler and OS vendors for decades.

None of it makes the language inherently any more complex, any more than representing machine instructions by long strings of binary makes _them_ any more complex.

[jcelerier]

> Well... the declaration you cited resolves down to a pointer to a wide integer

With a boatload of associated semantics, quite a bunch bein in practice compiler-dependent (looking at you, MSVC volatile).

And a "protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor" does not mean anything -- or at least any code that compiles.

[saagarjha]

> With a boatload of associated semantics, quite a bunch bein in practice compiler-dependent (looking at you, MSVC volatile).

Which is not part of C. Your argument that "C is complicated" doesn't work if you cite an egregious misuse of nonstandard extensions.

[3chelon]

Forgive my ignorance here, I'm genuinely intrigued: what's so special about MSVC's volatile as opposed to the regular volatile keyword?