> Yeah, language without ... decent comprehensive library
I'm sorry, did you just say C doesn't have a comprehensive library?! I agree with your other points (but posit that they are not always negative; some of the 'flexibility' is useful in the domains where C dominates. Most of the shortfall can be covered by tooling, linting and standards.
It's been almost a decade since I last used C, but I think the complaints are overblown. Some tools have sharper edges than others, but there are there to accomplish a goal.
>I'm sorry, did you just say C doesn't have a comprehensive library?!
Data structures? Lists, Hashtables, Maps, Strings, Refcounted pointers, Weak pointers, Ephemerons, iterators for mentioned? C library is a joke even by 1970 standards.
>Most of the shortfall can be covered by tooling, linting and standards.
The amounts of CVEs prove you wrong. Besides, a typical C-coder considers himself smarter than type checker, otherwise he would be using another language (ML, Rust, Ada, C++).
I'm sorry, did you just say C doesn't have a comprehensive library?! I agree with your other points (but posit that they are not always negative; some of the 'flexibility' is useful in the domains where C dominates. Most of the shortfall can be covered by tooling, linting and standards.
It's been almost a decade since I last used C, but I think the complaints are overblown. Some tools have sharper edges than others, but there are there to accomplish a goal.