Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 548475
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-08-18
and yet C is indeed stuck in the past, with C99 being the latest version i know of.
I guess the culprit is C++, which is supposed to be, well, C plus other things. So probably a lot of people will answer just that : newest versions of C are "embedded" into C++ evolution.
I feel pity for C. That basically means there is no more any evolution to wait for C, all this due to a "name grabbing effort" by the C++ team. For people who want the predictability of C, there has to be another route than C++.