There is no elegance there. Casting to void is not a plus. That’s just C having no proper type system.
Function pointers as an elementary form of closures, come on, what’s next? Closures are defined by capture. It’s nearly as fun as pretending C as coroutines because of setjmp.
How can a statement like C being semantically poor even be seen as controversial? For god sake, we are talking about a language which semantically doesn’t even have proper arrays.
> The elegance of the specification may be questionable, but the scope of what C tried to achieve is breathtaking. It actually is superior to most of its improvements.
Seriously? It wasn’t even a good language when it was released. Lisp and Pascal were far better. It won because of compiler availability and adequate performance on limited platforms.
Function pointers as an elementary form of closures, come on, what’s next? Closures are defined by capture. It’s nearly as fun as pretending C as coroutines because of setjmp.
How can a statement like C being semantically poor even be seen as controversial? For god sake, we are talking about a language which semantically doesn’t even have proper arrays.
> The elegance of the specification may be questionable, but the scope of what C tried to achieve is breathtaking. It actually is superior to most of its improvements.
Seriously? It wasn’t even a good language when it was released. Lisp and Pascal were far better. It won because of compiler availability and adequate performance on limited platforms.
HN really is a joke sometimes.