Re:Functional programming in C (2013)
by toomanythings4 on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @08:09AM
(#12121237)
I know things can go downhill quickly when I read things like this:
>There is one irritating thing about C as a viable programming language.
Given its history, I don't see where this guy comes from that he can declare whether C is a viable programming language or not. Especially when his real complaint is not about C at all.
>Microsoft’s compiler support is not good.
While some may complain that I'm making a minor quibble, my point is, when you make statements like this, your credibility falls a notch or twelve and I have to look at the rest of the article with suspicion.
Re:Functional programming in C (2013)
by MichaelGG on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @10:41AM
(#12122049)
Viable in this case means for FP, I'd guess. MS's C compiler support has been crap. In 2013 they didn't have C99 support, right? Just like he says. Even now it seems their C support is driven by the C++ requirement.
>There is one irritating thing about C as a viable programming language.
Given its history, I don't see where this guy comes from that he can declare whether C is a viable programming language or not. Especially when his real complaint is not about C at all.
>Microsoft’s compiler support is not good.
While some may complain that I'm making a minor quibble, my point is, when you make statements like this, your credibility falls a notch or twelve and I have to look at the rest of the article with suspicion.