Re:Do we need a “Rust Standard”?
by simplotek on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @07:43PM
(#33351140)
> C did not become successful because of its specification, it got a specification because it was successful.
I disagree. The need for a standard specification of what the C programming language is sprung from the need to ensure that multiple independent compiler implementations were actually compatible and supported the same sets of features.
If a nonstandard C ecosystem had to endure the pain of either targeting products from specific vendors or waste time maintaining a caniuse database of C features, the amount of wasted effort to just keep code building would make things too challenging and troublesome to maintain. Consequently, we would see gradual fragmentation both within the C-like ecosystem and in other potential C-like successors that ink offered minor changes.
I disagree. The need for a standard specification of what the C programming language is sprung from the need to ensure that multiple independent compiler implementations were actually compatible and supported the same sets of features.
If a nonstandard C ecosystem had to endure the pain of either targeting products from specific vendors or waste time maintaining a caniuse database of C features, the amount of wasted effort to just keep code building would make things too challenging and troublesome to maintain. Consequently, we would see gradual fragmentation both within the C-like ecosystem and in other potential C-like successors that ink offered minor changes.