• 257m@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If don’t want to do low level programming why use C in the first place? The whole point of using C is so you can fiddle with pointers to have absolute control. Rust and Go are great alternatives that have built in strings.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why does that mean C can’t implement a native string type?

      Why implement floats instead of making people do it themselves?

      • 257m@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Floats are implemented on most hardware by the instruction set so the language has no control over those unless your programming on a microcontroller like an atmega328p in which case you have to implement it yourself. As for why no in built support for strings is available in C is mostly due to C programmer hating change. Most hardcore C programmers are still using C89 (and the majority C99) and you can’t change old standards. C dosen’t need more features it needs less. I am a big fan of removing for loops like Zig to make the langauge simpler. That way it can maintain its minimalism. The more minimalistic the easier to write compilers.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Modern hardware also has specific instructions to speed up C string operations for the common ways they are implemented. We rely on compiler optimisation for those as well. Why not do the same for floats?

          • 257m@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because the language already supports it. Its not a question of what modern hardware can do just backwards compatibility and not changing the language too much. There would be no point in adding these features because if you want them you can just use Modern C++. There is no need for two identical languages occupying the same niche.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not arguing for C implementing classes and all other C++ features, only for a basic data type used in most programs. Backwards compatibility is also a pretty poor argument considering new versions of C are released every couple of years with new features, already breaking backwards compatibility. Why is this specific change too much?