I think that many of the problems that hinder productivity in C++ are relevant for C, I can similar research for C, I'm sure there is.
A pragma comparable to STDC FENV_ACCESS would be nice here, IF compilers even implemented stuff like that...
-
-
Fact is, in Ada they did. At any rate, UB is hard to justify here IMHO, esp w/o UBsan. BTW Android sort-of doing trap with the new UB-runtim
-
Another thing I forgot about Power Tools analogy. *Very* easy to understand safety guide. C expert fail internalize C safe programming rules
-
I don't think this is accurate. Most unsafe C is a consequence of breaking dead simple safety rules trying to be clever...
-
...which is a lot like disabling safety mechanisms on tools for the sake of being "macho"/saving time/whatever.
-
Unfortunately C has a huge corpus of utterly wrong examples, bad tutorials, bad teachers, etc. that new people learn to do these things from
-
I hate to be blunt, but this is factually incorrect. Even w/o discussing details, code bases by C experts contain UB, crypto code from GOOG>
-
>GCC code from the compiler makers. If it's so easy how come the experts keep making those misatkes, even musl;-) http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/10/19/1 … >
-
Yes, experts do this because they think they're smarter than they are. You can be smart enough once or ten times, but not N times as N→∞.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.