Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:35:31 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 02/04/2025 12:14, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:

>
Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's
blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
into a graph of inclusions:
>
    https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/
>

>
So much for C being a 'simple' language.

 
C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems language.
Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated processing
using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
 
IMO, YMMV.
 

>
The C standards committee knows what C is used for.  You can be quite
confident that they have heard plenty of people say that "C should be
left alone", as well as other people say "We would like feature X to be
standardised in C".

I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any correspondence with
anyone from the committee so they get an entirely biased sample. Just like
its usually only people who had a bad experience that fill in "How did we do"
surveys.

Changes and new features are not added to the C standards just for fun,
or just to annoy people - they are there because some people want them
and expect that they can write better / faster / clearer / safer /
easier code as a result.

And add complexity to compilers.

So what exactly is better / faster / clearer / safer in C23?