[Gibbon1]

Big problem with C is the standards committee just flat out refuses to add an array type to C. It's deranged because if you had first class arrays it'd be a lot easier to generate code that takes advantage of SIMD instructions.

[klodolph]

You mean “add a second array type?”

C has an array type, it’s just a bit wacky, and it doesn't play by the same rules as other types.

[pjmlp]

Yeah because requiring &array[0] instead of array is so much typing, UNIX V4 would never have been finished.

[klodolph]

You want to break existing code? If you made that change, you wouldn’t even be able to pass string constants into functions, because string constants are arrays (and not pointers, as some think).

The C standard committee has a general policy of not breaking code. If you want something like C with a better type system and less of the broken stuff (hello, arithmetic conversions) you can try Zig or one of the others. Once you’re okay with breaking code, you call it a different language, and go in trying to fix lots of things.

Unix V4 predates C standardization anyway.

[pjmlp]

Who mentioned anything about breaking existing code?

I already decided in 1992 that I don't want to use a broken language, unless when obliged by university work or work requirements.

Unfortunely I have to use software written by people that don't share that opinion and apparently WG14 also has a general policy that improving C safety doesn't matter.

[klodolph]

> Who mentioned anything about breaking existing code?

You did, when you proposed writing &array[0] to get the address to the first element of an array.

Or maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, in which case you could clarify.

> Unfortunely I have to use software written by people that don't share that opinion and apparently WG14 also has a general policy that improving C safety doesn't matter.

What would WG14 be doing differently if they didn’t have this “policy”? Isn’t the obvious explanation that their top priority is to maintain compatibility with existing code? Is this explanation not satisfactory?

It seems absurd—in the extreme—to expect a standards committee to break large swaths existing code to improve safety, in a language with such a large amount of legacy code such as C. I would expect that if the standards committee chose to do that, compilers wouldn’t implement it and users wouldn’t use it. If you are going to break existing code, why not use a different language?

[pjmlp]

> You did, when you proposed writing &array[0] to get the address to the first element of an array.

That would only happen in two cases:

1 - If C arrays had been properly designed in first place,

2 - Since it is too late for 1 unless we happen to have a DeLorean parked around the corner, by introducing a new datatype for new code, just like happened to bool and complex on C99.

This is basic compiler design stuff that surely the WG14 heads are capable of.

If not, the Microsoft team from Checked C project can gladly explain to them how to extend C with new array types, while keeping compatibility with existing code.

I really don't get your "maintain compatibility with existing code" hot discussion.

[Gibbon1]

I think zig just blew a big gaping hole in the argument that the language needs to be tied to legacy code.

Because zig can compile old C code and Zig into the same binary. Which means there is no reason you couldn't compile old legacy C code and new better C code into the same binary as well.

The C standards committee need to be fired and replaced with people who aren't willfully holding the language back.

[klodolph]

Hm, I can understand where you’re coming from but I think you’re asking for something which provides negligible value and would require a significant amount of engineering effort. Additionally, the way in which you’re expressing your opinions about the C language is needlessly inflammatory. What’s most unreasonable about your comment is the way it attacks people.

It seems like your issue here is really nothing more than the names of languages—your position is that there should be a language with clean semantics, interoperability with C, etc. and this language should furthermore be called “C”. A language exists—Zig—which seems to meet all your requirements except one. The only missing requirement, as far as I can tell, is that it is not called “C”. Let me know if there is something I misunderstand about your position, because I can’t think of a different way to interpret it.

I can see where you’re coming from—but to be honest, unless I am misunderstanding your position, your position seems completely unreasonable, and again, the personal attacks are pointlessly inflammatory.