| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<100hprs$276m9$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 13:42:52 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 24 Message-ID: <100hprs$276m9$1@dont-email.me> References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 13:42:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="069efaba5e4bb5c3d86fec5b828db5c3"; logging-data="2333385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Cz6XJMgkKQW/Iq75Nh3Oyn5wRqd/0HrE=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:RgU40I1TdMcrJoTxrAafgA+y3wM= In-Reply-To: <100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2152 On 20/05/2025 11:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 20/05/2025 10:18, Keith Thompson wrote: >> C90 will never be extended. > > And for that reason it will always be valuable. Stability has a value > all its own. > Sure. Similarly, C99, C11 and even C17 are stable and are valuable because of that stability. It's good that developers have, to a fair extent at least, an option to pick their stable point for their projects. It is actually not the fact that C has had stability in its standards that is valuable. Python 1.0 has not changed - it is stable. What makes C different as a development language is two things - modern tools continue to support old standards, and new standards are, to a very large extent, compatible with the old standards. And this also means that "extending C90" (or any other C standard) is an oxymoron, counter to the whole point of standards, and the antithesis of why C has remained popular (or at least useful) for so long.