C is fixed or not ?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by David Remacle, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. Hello,

    I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.

    My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?

    Thank's.

    ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.
    David Remacle, Jul 4, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Remacle

    Chris H Guest

    In message <4e116c59$0$13719$>, David Remacle
    <> writes
    >Hello,
    >
    >I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >
    >My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
    >
    >Thank's.
    >
    >ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.


    The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in
    2012

    --
    Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
    Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
    In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
    http://www.sarahpac.com/
    Chris H, Jul 4, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Remacle wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >
    > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?


    The ISO commitee is still active and proposing changes for an upcomog C201x
    See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf for the
    current draft for the next C standard

    See also comp.std.c, which is where these thing get discussed.

    Bye, Jojo
    Joachim Schmitz, Jul 4, 2011
    #3
  4. David Remacle

    Stefan Ram Guest

    David Remacle <> writes:
    >My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?


    The language described by »ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C« is fixed
    (ignoring possible inconsistences or absences of definitions).

    However, what language is referred to as »C« by the folks
    changes in time. Therefore, technically, »C« is not the name
    of a specific language. This, partially, is done for marketing
    reasons. (K&R [1st Edition] C was successful. ISO/IEC 9899:1999
    (E) C is another language, but ISO called it »C« to inherit
    the success of K&R [1st Edition] C, and people followed.)

    So we now have to live with the possibility that »C« in 20
    years from now might be quite a different language, again.

    To name a specific language, precede its name by the specification
    of its implementation or specification, such as, for example:

    - K&R (1st edition) C
    - ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C
    - GNU (compiler version) C
    - ...
    Stefan Ram, Jul 4, 2011
    #4
  5. David Remacle

    Noob Guest

    David Remacle wrote:

    > Hello,
    >
    > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >
    > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.


    Bonjour,

    In case you're wondering, the francophone news group is fr.comp.lang.c

    Regards.
    Noob, Jul 4, 2011
    #5
  6. David Remacle

    Chris H Guest

    In message <-berlin.de>, Stefan Ram
    <-berlin.de> writes
    >David Remacle <> writes:
    >>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?

    >
    > The language described by ›ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C‹ is fixed
    > (ignoring possible inconsistences or absences of definitions).
    >
    > However, what language is referred to as ›C‹ by the folks
    > changes in time. Therefore, technically, ›C‹ is not the name
    > of a specific language. This, partially, is done for marketing
    > reasons. (K&R [1st Edition] C was successful. ISO/IEC 9899:1999
    > (E) C is another language, but ISO called it ›C‹ to inherit
    > the success of K&R [1st Edition] C, and people followed.)
    >
    > So we now have to live with the possibility that ›C‹ in 20
    > years from now might be quite a different language, again.
    >
    > To name a specific language, precede its name by the specification
    > of its implementation or specification, such as, for example:
    >
    > - K&R (1st edition) C
    > - ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C
    > - GNU (compiler version) C



    What a load of drivel.

    C is NOT fixed. It is a continually evolving language.

    There were errors and erata's for K&R1
    C90 (ISO9899:1990) had 1 amendment and THREE TC'1
    C99 Also has TC's (Technical Corrigendum fixing, amending and
    changing)

    C1* is in development.

    So your statement that ISO C 9899:1999 is fixed is incorrect.

    GNU is NOT C... C is defined by ISO. GNU has it's own definition for
    GCC. GCC was developed in parallel and diverged from what became ISO C.





    --
    Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
    Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
    In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
    http://www.sarahpac.com/
    Chris H, Jul 4, 2011
    #6
  7. On Jul 4, 10:31 am, David Remacle <> wrote:
    >
    > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
    >

    It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be
    widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was.

    There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor.
    --
    Read my book MiniBASIC - how to write a script interpreter
    http://www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
    Malcolm McLean, Jul 4, 2011
    #7
  8. David Remacle

    Noob Guest

    Malcolm McLean wrote:

    > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    > include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    > failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    > language as it was.
    >
    > There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor.


    Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking
    interfaces minor features?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X

    Or do you think these features will not make it into the
    next standard?

    :)

    Regards.
    Noob, Jul 4, 2011
    #8
  9. David Remacle

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote:
    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >
    >> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    >> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    >> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    >> language as it was.
    >>
    >> There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor.

    >
    > Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking
    > interfaces minor features?
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X
    >
    > Or do you think these features will not make it into the
    > next standard?


    His comments about the past make sense only if he's referring to the
    language as actually used, rather than as defined by the relevant
    standards. His comments about the future are therefore, presumably,
    about the language as it will be used, not about anticipated changes to
    the standard.

    The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his
    comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones
    made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the
    multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't
    actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with
    such things to judge.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Jul 4, 2011
    #9
  10. David Remacle

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit :
    > On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote:
    >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    >>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    >>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    >>> language as it was.


    > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his
    > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones
    > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the
    > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't
    > actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with
    > such things to judge.


    That will be a catastrophe.

    There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi-
    threaded code in C:

    (1) POSIX pthreads
    (2) Windows threads

    The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a
    standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support
    is completely unconnected with software construction realities.

    The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because
    they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to
    implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them.

    Implementing multi threading support however is completely different.

    This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors
    will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do.

    You say:

    > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    > the most popular requests in this forum...


    I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
    this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
    memory serves

    If you search with google you will find a thread of about 2005
    when somebody wrote here he was writing a multi-threaded TCP
    server and he got the usual answer that multi-threading is system-
    specific and should go somewhere else.


    And you tell us "the most popular request"...

    It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is
    right to do so. Bending the truth is not a good strategy however.

    In this forum (and in comp.std.c) NOBODY has asked for that. The
    committee decided to include that because Mr Plaugher decided that
    he wanted that in the standard, not because in the user community
    somebody asked for that.

    The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the
    documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library.

    Maybe that has changed, I did not follow that since I consider that
    the language can't do a THIRD specification that will ADD TO THE
    CONFUSION of already two competing threading models.

    I see that as completely ridiculous
    jacob navia, Jul 4, 2011
    #10
  11. David Remacle

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit :
    >> On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote:
    >>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    >>>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    >>>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    >>>> language as it was.

    >
    >> The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his
    >> comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones
    >> made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    >> the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the
    >> multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't
    >> actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with
    >> such things to judge.

    >
    > That will be a catastrophe.
    >
    > There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi-
    > threaded code in C:
    >
    > (1) POSIX pthreads
    > (2) Windows threads
    >
    > The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a
    > standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support
    > is completely unconnected with software construction realities.
    >
    > The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because
    > they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to
    > implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them.
    >
    > Implementing multi threading support however is completely different.
    >
    > This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors
    > will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do.
    >
    > You say:
    >
    > > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    > > the most popular requests in this forum...

    >
    > I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
    > this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
    > memory serves


    Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having
    native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and C++.

    Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the
    feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C
    and C++ compilers.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jul 4, 2011
    #11
  12. David Remacle

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit :
    > On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    >>
    >> You say:
    >>
    >> > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    >> > the most popular requests in this forum...

    >>
    >> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
    >> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
    >> memory serves

    >
    > Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having
    > native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and
    > C++.
    >
    > Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the
    > feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C
    > and C++ compilers.
    >


    OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in
    comp.lang.c++.

    Now I understand...

    NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the
    standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group
    jacob navia, Jul 4, 2011
    #12
  13. -berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
    > David Remacle <> writes:
    >>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?

    >
    > The language described by »ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C« is fixed
    > (ignoring possible inconsistences or absences of definitions).


    Not correct. Three Technical Corrigenda have been published since the
    C99 standard. (And for some reason you ignored ISO C90.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Jul 4, 2011
    #13
  14. David Remacle

    Tim Rentsch Guest

    James Kuyper <> writes:

    > On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote:
    >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    >>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    >>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    >>> language as it was.
    >>>
    >>> There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor.

    >>
    >> Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking
    >> interfaces minor features?
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X
    >>
    >> Or do you think these features will not make it into the
    >> next standard?

    >
    > His comments about the past make sense only if he's referring to the
    > language as actually used, rather than as defined by the relevant
    > standards. His comments about the future are therefore, presumably,
    > about the language as it will be used, not about anticipated changes to
    > the standard.
    >
    > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his
    > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones
    > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the
    > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't
    > actually be used. [snip]


    The key question is not whether (or how widely) C1X might be
    used but how widely it will be implemented. If C1X is widely
    implemented then its new features will be used.
    Tim Rentsch, Jul 5, 2011
    #14
  15. David Remacle

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 07/ 5/11 08:39 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit :
    >> On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You say:
    >>>
    >>>> Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
    >>>> the most popular requests in this forum...
    >>>
    >>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
    >>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
    >>> memory serves

    >>
    >> Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having
    >> native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and
    >> C++.
    >>
    >> Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the
    >> feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C
    >> and C++ compilers.
    >>

    >
    > OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in
    > comp.lang.c++.
    >
    > Now I understand...
    >
    > NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the
    > standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group


    Have you ever heard of cooperation?

    http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2010/n3137.html

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jul 5, 2011
    #15
  16. David Remacle

    MikeP Guest

    David Remacle wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >
    > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?


    Neutered, but some people (oddly) are trying to reattach it's balls.
    MikeP, Jul 5, 2011
    #16
  17. David Remacle

    MikeP Guest

    China Blue Dolls wrote:
    > In article <4e116c59$0$13719$>,
    > David Remacle <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >>
    >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?

    >
    > Algol 60 is fixed. It's also not used anymore.


    But Algol was surely a woman (note the complexity).
    MikeP, Jul 5, 2011
    #17
  18. David Remacle

    MikeP Guest

    Chris H wrote:
    > In message <4e116c59$0$13719$>, David Remacle
    > <> writes
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
    >>
    >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
    >>
    >> Thank's.
    >>
    >> ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.

    >
    > The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in
    > 2012


    C cannot be changed, it can only be replaced.
    MikeP, Jul 5, 2011
    #18
  19. David Remacle

    MikeP Guest

    Malcolm McLean wrote:
    > On Jul 4, 10:31 am, David Remacle <> wrote:
    >>
    >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
    >>

    > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    > include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be
    > widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was.
    >


    The one thing I liked about it over C++ and it was nixed... go figure!
    MikeP, Jul 5, 2011
    #19
  20. David Remacle

    MikeP Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit :
    >> On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote:
    >>> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to
    >>>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it
    >>>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the
    >>>> language as it was.

    >
    >> The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his
    >> comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the
    >> ones made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be
    >> one of the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a
    >> judgment the multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed
    >> that it won't actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've
    >> insufficient experience with such things to judge.

    >
    > That will be a catastrophe.
    >
    > There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi-
    > threaded code in C:
    >
    > (1) POSIX pthreads
    > (2) Windows threads
    >
    > The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a
    > standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support
    > is completely unconnected with software construction realities.


    That seems to be either a silly statement or propaganda, for C (and C++)
    lag behind industry usage, and the ISO just tries to bring some order to
    the madness (or so I have heard).

    >
    > The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because
    > they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to
    > implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them.
    >
    > Implementing multi threading support however is completely different.
    >
    > This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors
    > will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do.


    I think I know where you are coming from: wishful thinking. I'm sure you
    can or will be able to do something eventually, but it doesn't sound like
    anything original.
    MikeP, Jul 5, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
  2. GuyBrush Treepwood
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    13,852
    Toby Inkster
    Mar 29, 2005
  3. johnp
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,655
    Toby Inkster
    May 23, 2005
  4. monique
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    482
    monique
    Jan 27, 2006
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,050
    Jonathan N. Little
    May 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page