[ryao]

C would be useful to the broadest audience. C++ programmers can read C while C programmers cannot always read C++, especially when the newer language constructs are used. I mentioned Python because of its popularity.

Interesting, the Algorithmica article the author cited is in C:

https://en.algorithmica.org/hpc/data-structures/s-tree/

[npalli]

C++ not C. The author explains his choices elsewhere in the site.

[ryao]

The code snippets should be accepted by a C compiler and therefore are valid C code.

[npalli]

If you want to be pedantic, there is a constexpr in the snippets, wont be accepted by the C compiler. More broadly though it is a C++ tutorial. I insisted on it because the author of algorithmica actually explains he chose C++ and perhaps sometime later C/Rust or something might be better. Should respect his POV.

[ryao]

I had not seen the use of constexpr. You are correct that those are in C++.

[lubutu]

C23 has constexpr, albeit only for objects, not functions. The code also uses namespaces, as in `std::aligned_alloc(P, T)`.

[ryao]

You have to be 1/3 down the page to see any of this in the code examples. By that point, you would already have seen a number of examples that are valid C code and it is reasonable to expect the rest to be. At least, that was my experience.