Skip Navigation

Programmer Humor @lemmy.ml

PandaDEV @lemmy.ml

2w ago

unsafeCode

Programmer Humor @programming.dev

cm0002 @lemmy.world

2w ago

unsafeCode

226 15

You're viewing a single thread.

20 comments

i will never forgive C for making the type syntax be
c

char* args[]
instead of the much more reasonable
c

&[char] args
it also bothers me that char* args[] and char c are “the same type” in the sense that the compiler lets you write
c

char c, *args[5];
with no problems. i think the C languages would be way easier to learn if they had better type syntax. don’t even get me started on C++ adding support for
cpp

auto fn_name() -> ReturnType { … }
- @affiliate Hey, you didn't even mention that char *args[] actually means char **args in a parameter list.
  
  god, what a beautiful language. it brings a tear to my eye
  
  I personally think that C++ can be beautiful. For example: std::filesystem::path overrides the / operator, for specifying parent paths. It’s the same as Kotlin’s OKIO and Pythons standard pathlib.
  
  It could, but not necessarily.
  char **args can just mean you have a pointer which points to an address, and at that address, you can get a second address. Follow the second address, there is a char saved there.
  On the other hand, char *args[] means " follow this address to find a list of characters".
  
  @racketlauncher831 As far as the C compiler is concerned, there is literally no difference between those two notations. If you declare a function parameter as an array (of T), the C compiler automatically strips the size information (if any) and changes the type to pointer (to T).
  (And if we're talking humans, then char *args[] does not mean "follow this address to find a list of characters" because that's the syntax for "array of pointers", not "pointer to array".)

20 comments