[TUHS] Re: Minimum Array Sizes in 16 bit C (was Maximum)

[Luther Johnson <luther.johnson@makerlisp.com>]

C# addresses some of the things being discussed here. I've used it, I
don't care for it all that much, I prefer straight, not-at-all modern C,
but I think there are probably a few dialects over the years (Objective
C ?) that have addressed some of these desires for a "better C, but not
C++". Do others here have comments on these inspired by C, kind of
C-like, but with a few other computer science components, thrown into
the language machine ?

On 09/29/2024 05:36 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> It doesn't have to be that way, C could be evolved, I built a very C
> like language (to the point that one of my engineers, who hated the
> new language on principle, fixed a bug in some diffs that flew by,
> he thought he was fixing a bug in C).  No pointers, reference counted
> garbage collection, pass by value or reference, switch values could be
> anything, values, variables, regular expressions, etc.
>
> If I had infinite energy and money, I'd fund a gcc dialect of that C.
> Alas, I don't.  But C is very fixable.
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:56:47AM +1000, Rob Pike wrote:
>> I'm saying the exact opposite: they are unavoidably unsafe.
>>
>> -rob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 8:21???AM Rich Salz <rich.salz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> C and C++ have become non-portable and dangerously insecure, as well as
>>>> often very surprising to the point that the US government arguing against
>>>> using them.
>>>>
>>> I thought their main arguments were to use memory-safe languages. Are you
>>> saying the C language can be as safe s go, rust, etc., by language design?
>>> (I don't think you are, but the sentence I quoted kinda implies that, at
>>> least to me.)
>>>