Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
> Hello,
>
>
> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>
> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>
> Read more here:
>
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>
>
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.

On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>
>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>
>> Read more here:
>>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>
> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.

Sorry but you are wrong. There is more C code running out there than
anything else. Just about every real time system is running C. Linux
is totally written in C code. All engine management systems are running
C. Etc, etc, etc.

Lynn

On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>
>>> Read more here:
>>>
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>
>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.  Linux
> is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems are running
> C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>
> Lynn

How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of lines
of Cobol running?

On 2022-03-01, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong. There is more C code running out there than
> anything else. Just about every real time system is running C. Linux
> is totally written in C code. All engine management systems are running
> C. Etc, etc, etc.

None of that refutes "C is not modern". Quite the opposite; a language
that is popular must be modern if, in spite of popularity, there isn't a
lot of code written in it yet. Oceans of code tend to confirm lack of
modernity.

The statement is correct; C is not a modern language. The phrase "modern
C" doesn't imply otherwise; it just refers to a dialect that is new
relative to other dialects of C. Some things have been modernized due to
some people's expectations that come from contact with other new things.

In other respects, it's an oxymoron, like "modern Fortran".

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>
>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>>
>>>> Read more here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>>
>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>
>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
>> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.  Linux
>> is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems are
>> running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of lines
> of Cobol running?

Not even close, C big time the winner.

Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
million to 30 million lines of C code.

Every single Android cell phone has a Linux operating system written in
C. Every single Apple cell phone has an iOS operating system written in C.

All Microsoft operating systems are written in C. All Apple PC
operating systems are written in C. Linux is written in C. Unix is
written in C. Etc, etc, etc.

Lynn

On 2/28/2022 7:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2022-03-01, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>
>> Sorry but you are wrong. There is more C code running out there than
>> anything else. Just about every real time system is running C. Linux
>> is totally written in C code. All engine management systems are running
>> C. Etc, etc, etc.
>
> None of that refutes "C is not modern". Quite the opposite; a language
> that is popular must be modern if, in spite of popularity, there isn't a
> lot of code written in it yet. Oceans of code tend to confirm lack of
> modernity.
>
> The statement is correct; C is not a modern language. The phrase "modern
> C" doesn't imply otherwise; it just refers to a dialect that is new
> relative to other dialects of C. Some things have been modernized due to
> some people's expectations that come from contact with other new things.
>
> In other respects, it's an oxymoron, like "modern Fortran".

So C 17 is not a modern language ? C has been modernized several times,
89, 99, 11, and 17. I started writing C code in 1985 and it has changed
quite a bit since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision)
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C17_(C_standard_revision)
Lynn

On 01/03/2022 01:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>
> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.  Linux
> is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems are
> running C.  Etc, etc, etc.

This is a silly argument. C was created before anything else suitable
for such things existed. So no wonder  "more C code running out there
than anything else" as you put it.

People are normally slower to make changes; They always say "if it is
working why fix it"?

Am 01.03.2022 um 02:26 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>
>>> Read more here:
>>>
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>
>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
> anything else. ...

Because it's a language easy to learn. But it'ts not as
modern language since it lacks all modern language facicities.

Am 01.03.2022 um 03:29 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> On 2/28/2022 7:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2022-03-01, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>>
>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
>>> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.  Linux
>>> is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems are running
>>> C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> None of that refutes "C is not modern".  Quite the opposite; a language
>> that is popular must be modern if, in spite of popularity, there isn't a
>> lot of code written in it yet. Oceans of code tend to confirm lack of
>> modernity.
>>
>> The statement is correct; C is not a modern language. The phrase "modern
>> C" doesn't imply otherwise; it just refers to a dialect that is new
>> relative to other dialects of C. Some things have been modernized due to
>> some people's expectations that come from contact with other new things.
>>
>> In other respects, it's an oxymoron, like "modern Fortran".
>
> So C 17 is not a modern language ?  C has been modernized several times,
> 89, 99, 11, and 17.  I started writing C code in 1985 and it has changed
> quite a bit since then.
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99
> and
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision)
> and
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C17_(C_standard_revision)
> Lynn

The "improvements" of the new standards are rather tiny compared
to what C++ has improved with C++11 and C++20.

On 01/03/2022 02:23, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
>> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>>
>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C.
>>>>> Now, Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11
>>>>> standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read more here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>>>
>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>>
>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
>>> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.
>>> Linux is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems
>>> are running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of
>> lines of Cobol running?
>
> Not even close, C big time the winner.
>
> Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
> million to 30 million lines of C code.

> Every single Android cell phone has a Linux operating system written in
> C.  Every single Apple cell phone has an iOS operating system written in C.
>
> All Microsoft operating systems are written in C.

It uses a mix of languages, like .NET ones. Some APIs use C++. Many
still use C, although it likes to call it C++.

That is what is visible from the developer perspective. Internally, I've
no idea.

>  All Apple PC
> operating systems are written in C.  Linux is written in C.  Unix is
> written in C.  Etc, etc, etc.

I use Windows. My own stuff is 100% not written in C. It makes use of OS
and other libraries, which may well have been written in C, but when I
call code in those libraries, it will be as native code at that point,
not C.

The APIs used are generally refered to as C APIs, but it doesn't mean
that C invented that primitive style of interface, which these days
means using these types:

i8-i64
u8-u64
Arrays of any of these
Structs of any mix of these
Pointers to any of these
And using the machine ABI for function call conventions

Such types are common to at least a dozen languages, which will largely
follow the ABI too.

In the case of the ABI, Win64 ABI is not specified in C terms (on SYS V
it is, in that it uses C terms to describe the types).

Some C-language characteristics do appear in such APIs and ABIs:

* Variadic parameters
* The rules for struct member alignment and padding
* The weird 'char' type that is neither i8 nor u8
* Things like case-sensitivity in names shared between programs and
libraries

Otherwise, all those reams of C code could be replaced overnight by
another comparable language, or even assembly, and no one would notice
(other than it might be faster/slower or smaller/bigger).

The language called C could be split into two parts:

* The lower-level set of primitive types, the basic set of operators,
control-flow facilities, the concept of imported and exported names and
so on. A kind of VM if you like.

* The actual language C with its idiosyncratic syntax, its various
quirks and its messy attempts at providing those primitive types and a
million other things that people associate with it, like its macro
system, nested headers and lack of modules.

The first part is a common subset of many languages. Doubtless many
systems languages exist, have existed, or could exist that make short
work of such a language spec.

But it is a fact that C has dominated that area of mainsteam systems
languages, to the extent that there are hardly any viable alternatives.
(C++ doesn't count.)

There are a few languages around now that call themselves systems
languages, but I doubt if they could be implemented in 180KB (the size
of tcc.exe).

(There is my language, which I've used exclusively for systems work for
decades, but that is a personal tool so hardly mainstream.

But one reason why I didn't let it die 20 years ago is /because/ there
wasn't a small-footprint alternative to C that I could switch to.)

Am 01.03.2022 um 03:23 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
>> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>>
>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C.
>>>>> Now, Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11
>>>>> standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read more here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>>>
>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>>
>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there than
>>> anything else.  Just about every real time system is running C.
>>> Linux is totally written in C code.  All engine management systems
>>> are running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of
>> lines of Cobol running?
>
> Not even close, C big time the winner.
>
> Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
> million to 30 million lines of C code.

For embedded-puorposes C++ is currently more frequently used.
Look at the job offers. C is an outdated language.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:

>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of lines
>> of Cobol running?
>
>Not even close, C big time the winner.
>
>Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
>million to 30 million lines of C code.

Sorry, you can't add the number of vehicles and conclude anything
about the number of lines of C code vs. COBOL code, particularly when
a large portion of it is based on wind river, linux and other embedded
operating environments (i.e. not bespoke).

Estimates of the number of lines of COBOL code running today range
from 750 to 800 billion lines. Mostly bespoke.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-how-much-cobol-code-is-out-there-the-answer-might-surprise-you/

>
>Every single Android cell phone has a Linux operating system written in

There is only _one_ linux operating system source tree that everyone
shares. Likewise for the Android user-level code as well.

COBOL code is almost completely bespoke.

On 01/03/2022 14:31, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 01.03.2022 um 03:23 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>> On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
>>> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there
>>>> than anything else.  Just about every real time system is running
>>>> C.  Linux is totally written in C code.  All engine management
>>>> systems are running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of
>>> lines of Cobol running?
>>
>> Not even close, C big time the winner.
>>
>> Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
>> million to 30 million lines of C code.
>
> For embedded-puorposes C++ is currently more frequently used.
> Look at the job offers. C is an outdated language.

You sometimes seem to live in a world of make-believe...

Use of C++ is definitely increasing in the embedded world, but
especially on smaller systems C is dominant by a long way.

We understand that you prefer C++ to C. But wishful thinking will not
change reality.

Am 01.03.2022 um 17:25 schrieb David Brown:
> On 01/03/2022 14:31, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 01.03.2022 um 03:23 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>> On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there
>>>>> than anything else.  Just about every real time system is running
>>>>> C.  Linux is totally written in C code.  All engine management
>>>>> systems are running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of
>>>> lines of Cobol running?
>>>
>>> Not even close, C big time the winner.
>>>
>>> Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
>>> million to 30 million lines of C code.
>>
>> For embedded-puorposes C++ is currently more frequently used.
>> Look at the job offers. C is an outdated language.
>
> You sometimes seem to live in a world of make-believe...
>
> Use of C++ is definitely increasing in the embedded world, but
> especially on smaller systems C is dominant by a long way.

That are only very small systems where C++ isn't appropriate.
Here in Germany there are much more Job offerings for embedded
-developers asking for C++ skills than for C skills only.

On 01/03/2022 18:13, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 01.03.2022 um 17:25 schrieb David Brown:
>> On 01/03/2022 14:31, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 01.03.2022 um 03:23 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>>> On 2/28/2022 7:29 PM, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/22 20:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry but you are wrong.  There is more C code running out there
>>>>>> than anything else.  Just about every real time system is running
>>>>>> C.  Linux is totally written in C code.  All engine management
>>>>>> systems are running C.  Etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>> How does the number of lines of C running compare to the number of
>>>>> lines of Cobol running?
>>>>
>>>> Not even close, C big time the winner.
>>>>
>>>> Every single vehicle running in the USA has several cpus running 20
>>>> million to 30 million lines of C code.
>>>
>>> For embedded-puorposes C++ is currently more frequently used.
>>> Look at the job offers. C is an outdated language.
>>
>> You sometimes seem to live in a world of make-believe...
>>
>> Use of C++ is definitely increasing in the embedded world, but
>> especially on smaller systems C is dominant by a long way.
>
> That are only very small systems where C++ isn't appropriate.

I did not say that C++ could not be used, or even that C++ would not be
appropriate. I said that C++ was /not/ used - C is is used. There are
a great many reasons - some good, some bad - why C is used on small
embedded systems.

> Here in Germany there are much more Job offerings for embedded
> -developers asking for C++ skills than for C skills only.

That does not contradict me in any way. Companies are looking for new
people with C++ skills, because - as I said - the use of C++ in embedded
systems is /increasing/. They don't need new C programmers, because
they already have C programmers.

> That does not contradict me in any way. Companies are looking for new
> people with C++ skills, because - as I said - the use of C++ in embedded
> systems is /increasing/. They don't need new C programmers, because
> they already have C programmers.

Most embedded-systems have CPUs beyond small PICs or 8051
where you can write in C++.
And on small CPUs like PICs and 8041 the applications being
run are so simple (because limited by small resources) that
C++ isn't a noticeable benefit.
But look at the Arduino UNO - although not having a heap or
a stack you can develop for it in a limited C++-subset with
slight advantages of C++.

On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>
>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>
>> Read more here:
>>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>
> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.

What is your definition of a modern language ?

Lynn

Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>
>>> Read more here:
>>>
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>
>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>
> What is your definition of a modern language ?

OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
proper error-handling like with exceptions.

On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 04:47:07 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> > On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
> >>>
> >>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
> >>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
> >>>
> >>> Read more here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
> >>
> >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
> >
> > What is your definition of a modern language ?
> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
> proper error-handling like with exceptions.
>
That's fair enough. With the exception of functional programming, these have all been
introduced since C was first developed.
You can argue about the benefits. Especially in C++, where these ideas have to be
bolted onto an existing language rather than implemented in a consistent way in
the basic design.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 04:47:07 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>> > On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> >> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>> >>>
>> >>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>> >>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>> >>>
>> >>> Read more here:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>> >>>
>> >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>> >
>> > What is your definition of a modern language ?
>>
>> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
>> proper error-handling like with exceptions.
>>
> That's fair enough.

Really? Seems like an arbitrary list picked because C++ just about has
something that could match.

I would associate "modern" with the approach taken by the language
designers, not to some set of features. A modern language would be one
designed taking into account what we have learned from earlier attempts.
In that sense, apart from deliberate "throwbacks", it's going to be
largely chronological.

> With the exception of functional programming, these have all been
> introduced since C was first developed.

Simula (1960s) had classes and inheritance. ML and CLU (both about
1973) had type-generic programming. RAII is just the name for what some
languages have always done and is simply meaningless in others.

> You can argue about the benefits. Especially in C++, where these ideas
> have to be bolted onto an existing language rather than implemented in
> a consistent way in the basic design.

Agreed. I don't think C++ can be considered "modern" since it is an
accretion of features and fixes to an old language. One could, however,
program in "modern C++" by picking a consistent and clean subset.

--
Ben.

On 02/03/2022 04:46, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>
>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>>
>>>> Read more here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>>
>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>
>> What is your definition of a modern language ?
>
> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
> proper error-handling like with exceptions.

They all sound like things designed to make coding harder and less
accessible.

What is available now are almost limitless resources which languages
tend to use in the wrong ways, IMO. Such as making hugely complex
installations.

My own stuff over the last few years has introduced:

* Whole-program compilers
* 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
* Super-fast compilers ...
* ... which are enough to run programs from source, subject to project scale

While at same time striving for clean, easy-to-understand syntax.

Perhaps your idea of a modern language is the torturous C++ examples you
keep churning out (so complex you can't even see needless duplications);
that's not mine!

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>
>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>>
>>>> Read more here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>>>
>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>
>> What is your definition of a modern language ?
>
>OOP,

Simula, 1967.

>RAII,

ADA, 1980.

> generic programming,

ML, 1973.

>functional programming,

Lisp, 1970's.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 04:47:07 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:=20
>> > On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:=20
>> >> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:=20
>> >>> Hello,=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,=
>=20
>> >>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.=
>=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> Read more here:=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-lin=
>ux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=3DCOS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=3DtrueAnthem%3A%2=
>0Trending%20Content&utm_medium=3DtrueAnthem&utm_source=3Dfacebook&fbclid=3D=
>IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> Thank you,=20
>> >>> Amine Moulay Ramdane.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.=20
>> >=20
>> > What is your definition of a modern language ?
>> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,=20
>> proper error-handling like with exceptions.
>>
>That's fair enough. With the exception of functional programming, these hav=
>e all been
>introduced since C was first developed.=20

That's incorrect. Most of those features have been part of
computer languages since the 1960s and 1970s.

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 02/03/2022 04:46, Bonita Montero wrote:

>> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
>> proper error-handling like with exceptions.
>
> They all sound like things designed to make coding harder and less
> accessible.

OK, I'll bite. Why would you not want type-generic functions? You have
an array and you want the maximum. Why write max (and probably the
array scanning) again and again just because sometimes it's an array of
int and sometimes an array of struct date?

And then, since lots of operations are just array reductions based on
some binary operation, why write that again and again? Functional
languages let you express the pattern once and for all so that

list_max(l) = reduce_using(max, l)
list_min(l) = reduce_using(min, l)
list_sum(l) = reduce_using(+, l)
list_product(l) = reduce_using(*, l)

Granted, given the right type system, imperative languages can do this
too.

--
Ben.

On 3/2/2022 2:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 04:47:07 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now,
>>>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read more here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y
>>>>>>
>>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard.
>>>>
>>>> What is your definition of a modern language ?
>>>
>>> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming,
>>> proper error-handling like with exceptions.
>>>
>> That's fair enough.
>
> Really? Seems like an arbitrary list picked because C++ just about has
> something that could match.
>
> I would associate "modern" with the approach taken by the language
> designers, not to some set of features. A modern language would be one
> designed taking into account what we have learned from earlier attempts.
> In that sense, apart from deliberate "throwbacks", it's going to be
> largely chronological.

I agree with the "learn from the past" idea - the good meaning in
"modern" should be an actual improvement in the quality of programming.
In that perspective, at least OOP is an interesting example: after a
considerably popular hype in the early 2000's, it has arguably grown
more and more controversial - since for many tasks it makes life harder
rather than easier.

In general, I think the list above is not really a benchmark of
"moderness" (apart of them having been introduced half a century ago),
it is in fact a list of programming techniques that are only as good as
they fit the task at hand - in that sense, "modern" programming would
require the ability of choosing the right technique for the task, rather
than sticking to a favorite list.
Bjarne himself (among many others) said that no good programmer should
stick to one language only (not even C++ only), but rather master
different ones in a few key areas.

>
>> With the exception of functional programming, these have all been
>> introduced since C was first developed.
>
> Simula (1960s) had classes and inheritance. ML and CLU (both about
> 1973) had type-generic programming. RAII is just the name for what some
> languages have always done and is simply meaningless in others.
>
>> You can argue about the benefits. Especially in C++, where these ideas
>> have to be bolted onto an existing language rather than implemented in
>> a consistent way in the basic design.
>
> Agreed. I don't think C++ can be considered "modern" since it is an
> accretion of features and fixes to an old language.
That's not entirely fair, the part about it being a fix on C. Especially
since C++11 C++ has grown in its own way.

One could, however,
> program in "modern C++" by picking a consistent and clean subset.
>

That could probably be said of many languages: a modern way of
programming rather than a modern language.

For example, I have seen some large C codebase with pretty advanced
memory management infrastructure.