As for build systems, autotools is a hilarious clown car of a disaster. You write a script (automake) to generate a huge, slow script (configure) to generate a makefile to finally invoke gcc? It is shockingly convoluted. It seems more like a code generation art project than something people should use. CMake papers over it about as well as it can, but I think cmake is (maybe by necessity) more complex than some other entire programming languages. In comparison, in rust “cargo build” will build my project correctly on any platform, any time, with usually no effort on my part beyond writing the names and versions of my dependencies in a file.
And as for package management, C is stuck in the 80s. It limps by, but it doesn’t have a package manager as we know them today. There’s no cargo, gems, npm, etc equivalent. Apt is no solution if you want your software to work on multiple distros (which all have their own ideas about versioning). Let alone writing software that builds on windows, Mac and Linux.
So no, C is not superior to other modern languages in its docs, build system or package manager. It is vastly inferior. I still love it. But we’ve gotten much, much better at making tooling in the last few decades. And sadly that innovation hasn’t been ported back to C.
I've got a parts drawer full of controllers that says it won't.
When it comes to microcontrollers rust is currently at the mercy of LLVM support and vendors.
> Those functions are completely non-standard and should be avoided in portable programs.
If you want I could have brought up hcreate, hdestroy, and hsearch:
> The functions hcreate(), hsearch(), and hdestroy() are from SVr4, and are described in POSIX.1-2001 and POSIX.1-2008.
Happier?
Personally I do not mind using libraries typically installed by the Linux distribution's package manager anyways.
If the question is whether or not I think the C standard library could be improved, then yes, I would say it could, but I do not want it to have a hash table and all sorts of stuff like that, because there are lots and lots of ways to implement them, and they might not suit my needs. C is great, because you can build it from the ground up (if you want to) to make it specifically for your use case. It gives you the building blocks. I believe I have a comment regarding this somewhere, that I like C because it does not implement stuff for you that is in some ways "generalized", which is often a bad thing. This is my problem with "it should have hash tables at least". You cannot implement it in such a way that it suits everyone's needs.
As far as Rust goes, yes, I do not like that crates are full of one-liners, and so forth. It shares the same problems that npm has. I ran cargo build on many Rust projects before. No way.
This is where C is superior to virtually every other language. It has K&R to start with [1], a wealth of examples to progress from there, man pages, autotools, cmake, static and shared libraries.
> good standard library.
It should have hash tables at least, but it isn't bad.
[1] Which is still the best language book ever written (yes, it has some anti patterns, you unlearn them quickly).