Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:26:18 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <86ldt6qmz9.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vpkmq0$21php$1@dont-email.me> <vplhc7$26ur1$3@dont-email.me> <87v7swzzl7.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <vpn4qi$2j0hq$1@dont-email.me> <vpo20n$2o9ks$1@dont-email.me> <vpo7ec$2ovro$1@dont-email.me> <87a5a7k0ko.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <vpprv6$34o4m$2@dont-email.me> <8734fzozd2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vprv83$3jah9$4@dont-email.me> <vps2sj$3k722$2@dont-email.me> <20250228141947.000056b8@yahoo.com> <vq18e1$neo2$1@dont-email.me> <86cyemu931.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vqravh$2frof$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:26:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e46727b472ba2d5903adccba45d2adf";
	logging-data="3913750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kbErGAVQH5e5DkEO+FHjHwj+MNjr+y2w="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7gGqjHU+QGvKmdOW+rVg4HB6s7A=
	sha1:mjYH4+6z5YG+Jk9HrD9AfXVlRe4=
Bytes: 2774

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 12/03/2025 05:11, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Are any of these cases ones that you find objectionable
>
> In my capacity as grumpy old git?  All of them, of course.
>
> For sound practical reasons?  No, of course not.
>
> But the importance of grump should not be under-estimated.
>
>> or would
>> cause difficulty for code that you work on?  If so which ones?
>> My question here is meant to ask about specifics, not just
>> general categories.  And to be clear, I don't mean to limit the
>> set of potential problems being considered to just the examples
>> given above.
>
> I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that there is merit in having
> a small, well-defined, well-known language that doesn't keep buzzing
> around. [...]

C99 is a small, well-defined, well-known language that doesn't keep
buzzing around.  C99 hasn't changed in more than a quarter of a
century.

> So no, Tim;  it's not for specific technical reasons, but more for
> the sake of having one widely-known language that really is a lingua
> franca and valuable for that very reason.

These days it is C99 that is more common than C90, just as today's
"lingua franca" is English rather than French.

So it looks like the grump factor is the only factor actually taking
part in the decision here.