[CerryuDu]

I find the repeated "yolo" qualifications very tiresome, yawn-inducing.

At least in this article:

https://fil-c.org/runtime

the term "classic C" is still used.

I don't expect for a moment that Fil-C might supplant normal C under normal circumstances. Calling normal C "yolo-C" is dishearteningly pompous. Just because you've invented a C environment with a different tradeoff, people not interested in it are not automatically irresponsible (which is what you are suggesting with "yolo", of course).

[pjmlp]

Back in the Usenet days we used to call C development, cowboy programming, while they called safer languages like Ada, Modula-2 and Object Pascal, straightjacket programming.

I am perfectly fine with Yolo-C nickname.

[reactordev]

Yolo - You only live once. Perfectly describes what happens when you have a segfault in C. It dies.

[wmf]

The point of Fil-C is that it converts silent errors into crashes. Paradoxically, Fil-C increases crashes.

[pizlonator]

Yes

[reactordev]

I’m here for it. Best of luck. This is the biggest issue we have with old C/C++ (besides the neckbeards not wanting change) is no one wants to go and update that old code so making it just work (with minimal intervention) is exactly what we need.

Now, guarantees…

I’d love to see Rust level intrinsics in gcc now that we have a rust gcc frontend. Improve upon the “RVALUE” crap and actually generate meaningful “oopsies” messages and errors with tips on how to fix. I’d even be ok with gcc + LLM to perform Rust level checking but I digress. Even just making sure footguns become errors is a start and making sure pointer trash is cleaned up is paramount. Even after 30 years I still sometimes forget to include a member variable in the move constructor…