On Friday, 5 February 2016 at 00:50:32 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 at 00:41:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 at 00:14:11 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
But it's 2016 and my PC has 32GiB of RAM. Why should a C
compiler running on such a system skip safety checks just
because they would be too expensive to run on some *other*
computer?
C has to be backwards compatible, but I don't know why people
do larger projects in C in 2016.
[...]
Why would simply adding a warning change any of that?
No ABI changes are required. Backwards compatibility is not
broken.
Not sure what you mean by adding a warning. You can probably find
sanitizers that do it, but the standard does not require warnings
for anything (AFAIK). That is up to compiler vendors.
As for why C isn't displaced by something better, maybe the right
question is: why don't new languages stick to the C ABI and
provide sensible C code gen.
Well, they want more features... and features... and features...
There is probably a market for it, but nobody can be bothered to
create and maintain a simple modern system level language.
