Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 20/07/2025 01:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 03:55:14 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

On 15/07/2025 20:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 02:40:58 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 27/06/2025 01:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
[...]if C is going to become more suitable for such high-
precision calculations, it might need to become more Python-like.

>
C is not in search of a reason to exist.

>
Not in traditional fixed-precision arithmetic, anyway -- at least
after it fully embraced IEEE 754.
>
With higher-precision arithmetic, on the other hand, the
traditional C paradigms may not be so suitable.

>
If you want something else, you know where to find it. There is no
value in eroding the differences in all languages until only one
universal language emerges. Vivat differentia.

 You sound as though you don’t want languages copying ideas from each
other.

Good, because I don't.
There's nothing wrong with new languages pinching ideas from old languages - that's creativity and progress, especially when those ideas are combined in new and interesting ways, and you can keep on adding those ideas right up until your second reference implementation goes public.
But going the other way turns a programming language into a constantly moving target that it's impossible for more than a handful of people to master - the handful in question being those who decide what's in and what's out. This is bad for programmers' expertise and bad for the industry.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within