… is good because 10.4K characters to write means I can be stunlocked easily. (¬_¬ )
At the end of this I just had to block this person. They're not engaging in good faith.
Funnily enough, I actually blocked them before on Twitter because they engaged in the same low-effort bad-faith won't-read-anything bait. Which is dumb, because I actually sat down and watched his video AND read his paper about the subject of ISO C, but fuck me for thinking he'd extend the same courtesy to others.
Anyways, into the block bin, no third or fourth chances for this one.
his paper about the subject of ISO C
Wait lmao is this the same Victor that wrote "How ISO C became unusable for OS dev" or some other dude?
EDIT: IT IS, Jesus. You think Thomas Köppe gets the same kind of nonsense? (I mean he must, right? But I never see it.)
And, despite the way he goes about it, there is a kernel of truth in his talk; nobody's really writing ISO C (a given), but the real problem is that there is actually an ENORMOUS CANYON between what people are writing from both day-to-day code to super-specialized code versus what ISO C allows.
The language really does need changes to be more helpful. It needs bitfields where you can specify its position as well as its size, you need ways to control operators even for built-in types without fucking over a header and everything downstream of it (or relying on compiler flags), you need ways to control where VLAs get their memory so you can have it on all devices, you need better language features so you can write good macros for formatting and more and have decent compile-time checking of formatting arguments....
There's a lot to do,
but nobody's really trying to do it. Meanwhile, these presentations of "RETVRN TO C89" don't actually fucking move the needle or provide any guarantees or improve anything. It's just worthless handwriting and I hate it so, SO much. Just spitting on Ritchie's grave rather than trying to actually do any meaningful improvements because they're fucking cowards and fake engineers who can't sit down and reason about things in a technically competent and normal way. (And blithely ignore any work to provide that technical information.)
The main thing that bothers me about RETVRN people is that they can just pass -std=c89!
Nobody stops them!
So if they're still complaining, something must be hindering them. They want some new feature that isn't in C89. Just. Not that one. Or that one. Only the ones that specifically address their exact needs.
I was "ha ha only serious" on Twitter when I mentioned Foreign Function Interface - the thing I personally mostly need from C is a better way to declare things about functions and data types, e.g. I was elated to see that there's movement on ... spans? slices? Whatever they end up being called. But I recognize that this is me, and other people have other needs.
