Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 29/05/2025 10:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:39:51 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as stable
as ever it was?

>
Even with the problems with const?
>
      char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle);
>
Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that.

>
Is C90 perfect? No, of course not.

 Is there some value in that particular state of imperfection?

Yes.

Like the
Amish, whose concept of the ideal level of technology is the one that was
in effect at the time they were founded? And who have remained stuck at
that point in time ever since?

No, not even remotely like that.
If I want C++, I know where to find it. If I want Python, I know where to find it. If I want Rust, I know where to find it.
You can have new tools without breaking the old ones. We didn't have to change BCPL to get B, or B to get C, or C to get D or C++.
This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend otherwise?
--
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