On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 05:32:52 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:


>
> This said, while the changes might be more conservative than to what happened to other languages, your statement that C hasn't evolved is simply false.

"evolve greatly"

You guys keep ignoring the adverb.

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 05:45:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 05:32:52 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>
>
>>
>> This said, while the changes might be more conservative than to what happened to other languages, your statement that C hasn't evolved is simply false.
>
> "evolve greatly"
>
> You guys keep ignoring the adverb.

Because it doesn't mean anything.

[x] Users had to patch every function in order to get type safety. Check.
[x] Compiler writers had considerable effort in implementing the new standards. Check.
[x] New features like overloading, and type system extension like 'const' or 'restrict' were added. Check.
[x] New code doesn't compile with older compilers without jumping through all sort of hoops. Check.

In fact, Java's backwards compatibility story looks better than C's to me.

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 07:08:30 UTC, Araq wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 05:45:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 05:32:52 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This said, while the changes might be more conservative than to what happened to other languages, your statement that C hasn't evolved is simply false.
>>
>> "evolve greatly"
>>
>> You guys keep ignoring the adverb.
>
> Because it doesn't mean anything.

"C hasn't evolved" and "C hasn't evolved greatly", are absolutely two different statements. Walter even listed some changes himself, so he admits some evolution, he just doesnt view it as a great change.

Which at the end of the day is a subjective call. I doubt any of you will change each others perspective on that. Walter knows what changed, he doesnt view it as a big thing, writing out a list wont change that...

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 20:34:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> C99 mainly cleared up a lot of uncertainty in IEEE floating point arithmetic, by stamping approval on the obvious things the C compilers were doing anyway. C99 added a couple new features, which were badly designed and remain unused - things like 'restrict' and that weird way to allocate arrays on the stack. Oh, and those miserable trigraphs, which were never used outside of test suites.

Hi Walter,

do you find the ideas of the restrict keyword and VLA bad, or only the current implementation in C99? If the ideas are good, how would you have implemented them instead? I'm using the latest version of C in my work, so your answer would be interesting to see.

BR, Henrik

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 02:04:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Because it's a bug I fixed fairly recently.

Ah, all good then.  So just wait for 2.092.1? :-)

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 15:58:58 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> My expectation would be that technical points are ignored or deleted if someone feels they are are phrased the wrong way. I might be wrong, but currently I have no desire to post on the Rust forums as it does not appear to be welcoming to all perspectives.

FWIW I do feel that the mods are being a tad heavy-handed in trying to push people to not widen the discussion to broader language comparisons.  I might feel differently if there were more people actually discussing the OB feature in-depth, but in such a short thread, with so few participants, it seems unnecessarily intrusive.

Still, it remains advice only so far.  If I get a ban or a timeout I may feel obliged to invite you to say "I told you so" ... :-)

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 21:26:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/20/2020 10:49 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Finally, dear Mike Parker, since you have deleted my original reply to Russel, may I ask you to delete any answer that quotes my answer, else your censorship looks a bit inconsistent. But consistency is apparently not held in highly regarded here anyway, given your statement from the 19 October 2019:
>
>
> That post can be justifiably removed for unprofessional demeanor in belittling others. Continue doing so, and they'll be removed, too.
>
> Mike has my full support and his decisions are final.

First of all, thanks Mike Parker for also deleting Russel's answer that contained my original answer (I still wonder how that could escape you). It looks a lot better now, more consistent. Well done.

Second, Walter, I've noticed that the word "unprofessional" has become a blanket term for anything the D leadership doesn't like / want to hear. In my opinion, D has become a political enterprise.

Thirdly, is there an update of the companies that use D? How many really use it, do the companies listed still use D (what about sociomantic?) and what do they use it for? Facebook is listed, I remember Andrei did some stuff (including a script like program), are they still using it actively?

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 15:27:13 UTC, Chris wrote:

Just in case, I'd like to have an answer to this:

Is there an update of the companies that use D? How many really use it, do the companies listed still use D (what about sociomantic?) and what do they use it for? Facebook is listed, I remember Andrei did some stuff (including a script like program), are they still using it actively?

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 15:27:13 UTC, Chris wrote:

>
> First of all, thanks Mike Parker for also deleting Russel's answer that contained my original answer (I still wonder how that could escape you). It looks a lot better now, more consistent. Well done.

Either I completely overlooked it or Russel uses a newsreader and had already downloaded the post before I deleted it but replied after. Our policy is to delete posts that quote deleted posts.

>
> Second, Walter, I've noticed that the word "unprofessional" has become a blanket term for anything the D leadership doesn't like / want to hear. In my opinion, D has become a political enterprise.

I have to disagree with this. Forum moderation is not censorship and there's nothing political behind it. I deleted your post not because of the opinion you expressed, but because of the manner in which you expressed it. You have a habit of insulting the people who put their time and energy into this project. Your posts have in the past derailed and disrupted otherwise civil discussions. I would not have deleted your post if you had not included that insult, or it if were a one-off. But for you, it's a pattern. And I will delete any future posts if you can't refrain from insulting people. You can be critical and civil at the same time. Please try to do so going forward.

On 22.05.20 15:29, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 15:58:58 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> My expectation would be that technical points are ignored or deleted if someone feels they are are phrased the wrong way. I might be wrong, but currently I have no desire to post on the Rust forums as it does not appear to be welcoming to all perspectives.
> 
> FWIW I do feel that the mods are being a tad heavy-handed in trying to push people to not widen the discussion to broader language comparisons.  I might feel differently if there were more people actually discussing the OB feature in-depth, but in such a short thread, with so few participants, it seems unnecessarily intrusive.
> 
> Still, it remains advice only so far.  If I get a ban or a timeout I may feel obliged to invite you to say "I told you so" ... :-)

Which is why they don't want to do that and instead prefer if you comply based on the latent threat of it happening. :P

Also, the tone is getting more stern, arguably getting close to or crossing the line of what they would consider acceptable for participants in the actual discussion. Fewer hearts now, too.