undefined | Better HN

0 pointswhizzter6d ago0 comments

I think the issue has been that the line between de-jure and de-facto behaviours has shifted over the years as compiler optimizations suddenly began relying on de-jure intrepretations of UB to increase performance while ignoring de-facto usage of the language.

When that started happened people became alarmed (oMG UB iS TeH BAD!) and since some old UB machines still had industry support (of organisations that actually participated in ISO meetings instead of arguing online) there was never any movement on defining de-facto usage as de-jure and the alarmist position became the default.

Personally I think the industry would've benefited from a Boring C (as described by DJB) push by people that would've created a public parallell "de-jure" standard that would've had a chance to be adopted by compiler creators.

0 comments

17186274406d ago

> I think the issue has been that the line between de-jure and de-facto behaviours has shifted over the years as compiler optimizations suddenly began relying on de-jure intrepretations of UB to increase performance while ignoring de-facto usage of the language.

I guess I am too young, and also too much a purist, because I start from the impression of what the language is, not what the implementations happen to do.

> Personally I think the industry would've benefited from a Boring C (as described by DJB) push by people that would've created a public parallell "de-jure" standard that would've had a chance to be adopted by compiler creators.

-O0

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

17186274406d ago

I guess I am too young, and also too much a purist, because I start from the impression of what the language is, not what the implementations happen to do.

-O0

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse