Not supporting obsolete versions of C is utterly awesome.

C89 is too old, too many grammar restrictions. And now the mainstream compiler basically supports c99.

What grammar restrictions? I've converted a few C99 libraries to C89 (since i prefer that one and i often work with older compilers because they are faster) and 99% of the time the reason a library uses C99 is inline variable declaration (which IMO is a bad style, but that is subjective) and // comments (which most C89 compilers support as an extension anyway).

The versions do have other differences, of course, but they're rarely used (the next most common one is designated initializers, which for me are the most annoying to convert).

I mean, it is your code, i just found the grammar restrictions part weird since really there isn't that much of a practical difference between C99 and C89 to the point i personally never felt the need to use C99.

(note that i focus on the language bits, C99 provides some extra library functionality but even then the most useful part is stdint.h which can be implemented in almost any C89 compiler anyway)

C89 cannot mix variable declarations and code.

    printf("Hello World!\n");
    int x = 7;
    printf("%d!\n", x);
    return 0;

This is a very serious restriction for me.

Yes, that is what i meant with "inline variables". IMO this is usually a sign of code that is too long to be readable and if you really need that you should either split the function to make it more readable or, if that cannot be done, enclose the affected code in their own brackets (with a comment that makes it easy to distinguish). Brackets also make sure that the variable wont "outlive" its context (although again that is a sign of code that is too long).

Of course that is my opinion (and i'm generalizing of course), but that comes from my experience with working with others' code.

Even if the function code is very short, I still like to define and declare variables nearby.

Unless a function has only two lines of code.

Right, that is your style, but i wouldn't call that "too many grammar restrictions" :-).

It's too many grammar restrictions for this person. That's obviously what's implied by the person's original comment.

That could be interpreted as sarcasm. It's not.

some would say that C itself is obsolete.. Ok, I can hear a bunch of people already piping up and whining how they're programming on a 8-bit toaster and only have a C compiler..but apart from that there are no real reasons to use C anymore since it's obsolete.

Until rust came along you had three non CG options C, C++ and ADA. If you also have a no heap requirement you're left with just C and ADA.

Rust is interesting if you can live with slow compile times and 4X the memory footprint of C.

Why does the no heap requirement preclude C++? Obviously, you couldn't use much of the STL (not really a loss in constrained environments), but I don't see a reason to write off the language itself?

It is used in embedded. I think that refutes the claim.

The memory footprint thing shouldn’t be different now; we stopped using jemalloc by default.