Alt text:
Transcendence meme template
function main() {…}
int main() {…}
void main() {…}
U0 main() {…}
/* HolyC example */
U0 Main()
{
U8 *message = "hello world";
"%s\n",message;
}
Main;
Alt text:
Transcendence meme template
function main() {…}
int main() {…}
void main() {…}
U0 main() {…}
/* HolyC example */
U0 Main()
{
U8 *message = "hello world";
"%s\n",message;
}
Main;
The Holy C integer naming scheme is so elegant, I wish c had adopted it
Wym? You mean you don’t like typing out
unsigned long longa hundred times?What really frustrates me about that, is that someone put in a lot of effort to be able to write these things out using proper words, but it still isn’t really more readable.
Like, sure,
unsignedis very obvious. Butshort,int,longandlong longdon’t really tell you anything except “this can fit more or less data”. That same concept can be expressed with a growing number, i.e.i16,i32andi64.And when someone actually needs to know how much data fits into each type, well, then the latter approach is just better, because it tells you right on the tin.
In c they do indeed just mean shorter and longer int as the size of the int is defined by the compiler and target and originally represented the hardware.
There are types like int32_t or int_least16_t.
Huh, so if you don’t opt for these more specific number types, then your program will explode sooner or later, depending on the architecture it’s being run on…?
I guess, times were different back when C got created, with register size still much more in flux. But yeah, from today’s perspective, that seems terrifying. 😅
The C standard for different ints is absolutely cursed, even after C99 tried to normalize it. The only requirement is that
sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <= sizeof(long long)andsizeof(char) == 1. Mind you they don’t define what size a byte is so you technically can have an architecture where all of those are 64 bits. Oh and for that same reason exact-size types (int32_t,uint16_tetc) are not guaranteed to be definedFuck