[ryao]

Being decades old does not make it out of date. Until a few years ago, the Linux kernel was written using C89. While it has switched to C11, the changes are fairly small such that a book on C89 is still useful. Many projects still write code against older C versions, and the C compiler supports specifying older C versions.

This is very different than Rust where every new version is abandonware after 6 weeks and the compiler does not let you specify that your code is from a specific version.

[koakuma-chan]

> This is very different than Rust where every new version is abandonware after 6 weeks and the compiler does not let you specify that your code is from a specific version.

Do you have any specific evidence? Rust ecosystem is known for libraries that sit on crates.io for years with no updates but they are still perfectly usable (backward-compatible) and popular. Projects usually specify their MSRV (minimum supported Rust version) in the README.

[ryao]

https://endoflife.date/rust

[koakuma-chan]

Are you asking for LTS releases? https://ferrocene.dev/en/

[ryao]

I was not asking for that. I was answering your question. You asked for evidence of rust releases being abandonware. I gave it to you. Someone else trying to ameliorate Rust releases does not change this reality.

[koakuma-chan]

Well “abandonware” is a strange way to call that because nothing is actually abandoned.

[ryao]

Use language features not considered “stable rust” that are later discarded and you will learn it is abandonware very quickly. In any case, you asked for proof and now have it. You should be saying thank you instead of trying to argue.

[koakuma-chan]

> Being decades old does not make it out of date.

Right, the docs never get out of date if the thing they document never changes. Can you say the same about C++ though? I’ve heard they release new versions every now and then. My robotics teacher didn’t know ‘auto’ is a thing for example.

[ryao]

Both C and C++ release new versions. The compilers continue to support the old versions and people continue using the old versions (less so in the case of C++). Rust’s compiler drops the old version every time it has a new release.

There is no `-std=1.85` in rust 1.86. You do get `-std=c++98` in both g++ and clang++. A book on C or C++ is still useful even decades later since the version of C or C++ described does not become abandonware at some well defined point after release, unlike Rust releases.

[koakuma-chan]

I'm confused. Rust uses semantic versioning:

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

    MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
    MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner
    PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes

Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.

What kind of versioning scheme does C/C++ use?

[ryao]

C and C++ are two different languages. They are versioned by years. Rust technically does not have versions. The rust tools have versions. Basically all versions of C are binary compatible with each other. I suggest you actually learn and use C rather than asking questions since you are never going to ask the right things to understand how it works without having firsthand experience.

[koakuma-chan]

> C and C++ are two different languages. They are versioned by years.

That sounds like Rust editions.

[ryao]

Only superficially. You cannot specify a past version of Rust where features existed that have since been removed by doing that. You also do not have a situation where two different incompatible languages are being accepted by the same compiler and as long as you specify which one is used, the compiler will properly compile code for it. For example, C will not accept headers with C++ exclusive features like namespaces and C++ will not accept headers with C exclusive features like variably modified types.

The only reason you see people grouping the two languages together is due to history. They are both derivatives of an ancient prestandard form of C called K&R C. They both have different standards committees who had different ideas about how to move forward from K&R C. The result is that C compilers were extended to support both, and that extension continues to this day despite the divergence between the two languages. The C standards committee accepted some of the changes the C++ committee made to K&R C, although the C++ standards committee does not reciprocate by accepting changes made by the C standards committee. This is making them increasingly different languages.

Try to spend time learning how other things work instead of posting replies that attempt to reinterpret everything people tell you through a Rust lens whenever someone is kind enough to answer your questions like you are doing here. It is like asking people how Chinese works and then telling them “English does it this way”. The “nothing matters but <insert language here>” mentality that causes that is going to annoy a large number of people from whom you would otherwise be able to learn.

[jpc0]

Auto as it is now has been in C++ since C++11, thats more than a decade ago...

If your argument was C then sure thats a C23 feature (well the type inference type of auto ) and is reasonably new.

This is much more a reflection on youe professor than the language. C++11 was a fundamental change to the language, anyone teaching or using C++ in 2025 should have an understanding of how to to program well in a 14 year old version of said language...

[koakuma-chan]

> Auto as it is now has been in C++ since C++11, thats more than a decade ago...

> anyone teaching or using C++ in 2025 should have an understanding of how to to program well in a 14 year old version of said language...

If the current year is 2025 then 14 years ago is 2011 which is not that long ago.

> If your argument was C then sure thats a C23 feature (well the type inference type of auto ) and is reasonably new.

Grandparent comment is arguing that Linux was written in C89 until a few days ago so decades old books on C aren't actually outdated.

[jpc0]

Decades ols books in C most certainly is even useful in modern C++23 because you need to interact with other libraries written in C89.

When a lot of modern CS concepts wwre first discovered and studied in the 70s, there's no point arguing that old books are useless. Honestly there may be sections of old books that are useless but in the whole they are still useful.

[koakuma-chan]

We're talking about learning C/C++ from scratch which makes no sense to do by using a decades old book because it wouldn't teach you any modern features. Also we're not talking about computer science.

[ryao]

You do not need to know about modern features to write code in C. This is part of computer science.