371
unsafeCode
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
371 points (95.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
39571 readers
8 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
i will never forgive C for making the type syntax be
instead of the much more reasonable
it also bothers me that
char* args[]andchar care “the same type” in the sense that the compiler lets you writewith 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
@affiliate Hey, you didn't even mention that
char *args[]actually meanschar **argsin 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::pathoverrides the/operator, for specifying parent paths. It’s the same as Kotlin’s OKIO and Pythons standard pathlib.It could, but not necessarily.
char **argscan 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 acharsaved 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".)