JohnnyStarr
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 822
Joined: Feb 14, 2009
|
#1 id:37977 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 6:58 pm
|
So this is random, but does anyone out there write their code in C89?
Lua is implemented in C89 for portability, and I was wondering if there were
any enthusiasts out there that followed this discipline. Am I correct in understanding
that, in order to write truly portable code, you could write it in C89, but not write
things that wouldn't compile in say gcc 4.+? In other words, if Lua can be compiled on
most C compilers, wouldn't it be wise to make sure that your mud is also written this way?
|
|
.........................
"It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,472
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#2 id:37978 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 11:56 pm
|
I reject antique standards unless there's a really good reason to use them.
In the case of Lua, I suspect they want it to be useable for embedded devices and things which may not have modern compilers available, but for a game project, I'd rather spend time coding the fun game logic, rather than nitpicking casting rules and how paramaterized macros get expanded.
For that matter, I'd say it's just about pointless to limit yourself to the C language, when almost every environment you'll have C in will also give you C++. Unless you happen to enjoy pain, char *'s are just plain evil, and string handling errors are probably the number one cause of data corruption and crashes out there.
Heck, even Debian has dropped support for gcc 3.2 from their distributions, and that's from 2002. If an OS designed to run on anything from a 386sx/16 to a quad-core i7 doesn't need to follow C89, I see no reason for a game driver to do so.
But that's just my 2 cents. :)
|
......................... 
|
|
|
|
Tonitrus
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: Jul 11, 2009
|
#4 id:37984 Posted Nov 22, 2009, 2:34 pm
|
I think the reason that certain projects use C89 is that C99 still isn't portably implemented, compilers have added various features from it, but haven't wholly implemented it.
I personally can't think of any reason you should write your mud to any sort of "standard" unless you're planning on releasing a codebase to the general public. Even then, you should only bother with C89 if you plan for it to run on toasters, microwaves, traffic lights, and other such nonsense.
With a mud you have a totally different audience than something like Lua, namely, you. You probably won't want to host a mud on anything that will only run a C89 compiler anyway, so who cares?
In other news, I can't wait to see how long it takes C1x to be implemented.
|
|
.........................
[00:01:15] KaVir: That's why I'm always careful to empty my inventory before picking up players.
|
|
|
|
Tonitrus
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: Jul 11, 2009
|
#6 id:37995 Posted Nov 22, 2009, 5:33 pm
|
David Haley said:It's like using shorthand in your own notes: it's all well and good when you know what you mean, but a few years later your own notes can be incomprehensible to you until you re-establish your shorthand conventions.
I can't read notes I wrote yesterday, and I don't even use shorthand. :(
David Haley said:BTW, C99 is in fact rather portably implemented for almost all practical intents and purposes. One should not overstate the impact of it not being absolutely, completely portably implemented.
I think it bears mentioning that "portability", especially with regards to C, is a situation of sharply diminishing returns.
I couldn't personally care less about any compiler that isn't gcc, which, incidentally, doesn't completely support C99.
I believe most compilers have the basics of it implemented, and it looks like a few of them have it entirely, but as far as I'm aware, there isn't much that won't compile C89 code.
So mainly, for the issue of portability, it's technically true that C89 is more portable than C99.
If I'm not mistaken, it's also technically true that C89 is more portable than C++.
The appropriate response to all these observations/questions, though, unless you're making something where portability is a top priority (which it practically never is) is "Who cares?"
Use whatever language/standard you feel comfortable with and will write good code in. If you don't like what you're writing, you won't enjoy programming in it, and you'll either give up or persist and be miserable.
|
|
.........................
[00:01:15] KaVir: That's why I'm always careful to empty my inventory before picking up players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
