On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM, James K. Lowden <jklow...@schemamania.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:32:46 -0700
> Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote:
>
> > Basing source on "ANSI C" (as much as possible) just gives you the
> > biggest possible distribution / compatibility.
>
> Yes, but it also limits you to C as it stood 20 years ago. And
> counting. Is there no point at which a more recent standard should be
> adopted? Among features of C11 I use:
>
> stdint.h
> stdbool.h
> VLA
> designated initialization
>
{snipped}
>
> Knowing what I do of the philosophy of the SQLite developers -- if we
> can speak of such -- I honestly think they (you) would find C11
> amenable. It's a better language. It's every bit as respectful of its
> environment, and is more standardized and more easily conformed to it.
>
I agree with all your points regarding the superiority of C99 to ANSI C.
The only downside to it is the "baked in" compatibility. I'm not aware of
any C99 conforming compiler that does not also claim to support C89, but
not vice versa.
It doesn't really matter much to me, as I'm not personally trying to target
such platforms. When I write my own code, I prefer C++11 or later,
personally. But I'm not trying to provide a robust library that works
practically everywhere, either.
--
Scott Robison
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
