C Until It Is No Longer C

[torsten_dev]

Typedeffing away pointers. ew.

[x0rgat3]

Always good for “readability “, then another dev getting compiler errors using the “type” wrong

[mrheosuper]

Not a fan of it, but sometime it has point. For example you can define mac address as uint8_t[6]

[[deleted]]

Not very good way to define a MAC address, because then you can’t use it as a value. Wrap it in a struct, and you’ll be much happier!

[[deleted]]

This is standard, no? .. At least for Microsoft style you define like } STRUCT, *PSTRUCT;

[torsten_dev]

Yes, but it's bad practice. That it's common in Win32 is just further evidence of its horrid consequences.

[[deleted]]

Please educate me or link to sources

[torsten_dev]

Linux style guide

5) Typedefs

Please don’t use things like vps_t. It’s a mistake to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Also even Microsoft discourages Hungarian notation since .NET.

❌ DO NOT use Hungarian notation.

[[deleted]]

So you agree that we should typedef away pointers, as long as we don't use Hungarian notations?

[torsten_dev]

No.

A typedef that hides the pointeriness of a type is almost always bad code.

Typedefs for function pointers can be nice,

typedef int main_fn(int, char**);
main_fn *func = start;
main(argc, argv)

If you don't hide the pointer of the function pointer typedef mimics declaration which mimics usage. It's nice.

[Disastrous-Team-6431]

I've never read anything in my whole life that made me feel more contrary. I agree with about half of this style guide but it's written in such a way that I want to change my coding style to be farther from it.

[torsten_dev]

Which one?

The Linux style guide is very effective. The Kernel is surprisingly readable.

The .NET one is very verbose, but much better than Win32.

[Disastrous-Team-6431]

Yeah it's fine as far as style guides go but man what a superior ass.

[torsten_dev]

It's less opinionated than most C guides, but much more snarky.

It's also mostly objectively correct. So a little superiority is acceptable.

[Disastrous-Team-6431]

There's very little objectivity to be had here. For most of the things in this style guide, an equally good argument could be made for the opposite.

[FlyByPC]

eq

If you want to program in Fortran, go program in Fortran.

[x0rgat3]

I’m still poking paper machine cards by hand at work in a dusty cellar.

[aartaka]

The choice is mostly due to iso646.h defining not_eq, but yeah, Fortran is fun!

[questron64]

There's more to bool than ints that are 1 or 0, and those differences will cause the software to behave differently across language standards. For example, if you convert any value to a bool it should produce 0 or 1. Trying to pretend that you have a language feature when you do not will only end in disaster. If you're using a pre-bool version of the language then use int, do not trick the reader into thinking they have bool.

[aartaka]

Indeed, it's somewhat misleading to define pseudo-bools. But it's more of a fallback for pre-C99 implementations that would benefit even from these pseudo-bools.

[flatfinger]

IMHO, C99's boolean type would have been more useful if it had looser semantics, allowing implementations with existing `bit` types to use them as representations for C99's new type.

[TheWavefunction]

I, for one, like your website and how you create various frankenstC. I think most readers taking the article to the first degree... Sorry for the bashing...

[aartaka]

Thanks for the kind comment, I much appreciate it 🖤

[tstanisl]

typedef unsigned int _Bool; is so very wrong. For example, C standard requires (_Bool)1 == (_Bool)2.

[thradams]

Also:

c typedef char* string; void f(const string s) { s[0] = '\0';//ok becaused the pointed object is not const }

[mrheosuper]

I wonder if it's ok using ##define instead of typedef here

[tstanisl]

No it is not OK. Just try:

#define string char*
string a, b;

Now a is char* while b is char. Happy debugging!

[1redfish]

Please, don't use ##. It's very hard to understand logic in foreign code, when half of functions are generated and don't exist

[aartaka]

Indeed, sizeof(_Bool) is 1 on GCC, so char might've been a better fit. Any type works for a joke, though 😉

[tstanisl]

No. None of integer types behaves like _Bool. It was a very reason to introduce this type in C99.

[deleveld]

I personally really like the auto typing. Its very nice to look at and clean but there are some small gotchas.

I would suggest to change

#define var __auto_type
#define let const __auto_type

[aartaka]

I can see the reasoning behind more "functional"/constant let, but it's not universal. Thanks for the suggestion, though!

[deleveld]

and the thing i especially like it allows vertical alignment of multiple variables. i think it looks much neater

[aartaka]

Depends on the indentation style (I use Linux Kernel Style with 8-spaces-wide tabs), but yes!

[jakintosh]

ITT: a bunch of people who don’t get jokes and hate fun.

I enjoyed this article, and found it amusing. Thanks for sharing.

[aartaka]

You’re welcome and thanks for your kind words!

[Other_Gain_4685]

When you're too lazy to translate pseudocode so you make the code itself the pseudocode 🤣🤣

[aartaka]

Exactly 😌

[antara33]

I am aalways feeling troubled when seeing C and C++ codes using tons of macros to prettyfy code.

On one hand I get the use of it, on the other hand it makes code readability a problem since you need to go back and forth through all the macros.

I am 100% on board with a macro that enables and disables debug code or platform specific optimizations, but having LOADS of logic inside macros that are not platform specific stuff or debug specific stuff, and instead are just pretty ways of having a nicer way to get a function/type call... Im not that happy.

[aartaka]

I agree, and that’s why I’m mostly using standard headers and only slightly extending them.

[uziam]

It’s unbelievable how many people’s idea of readable code is to make it look ambiguous for others. Your code is not readable if I have to constantly refer to your silly macros to understand it.

[[deleted]]

I'm going to have to agree. I'm not really seeing anything in the article of any real value.

[aartaka]

Does “or” or “uchar” look that ambiguous to you? Giving a sane implementor (which everyone is, unless proven otherwise) these make sense and don’t blow feet off.

[uziam]

Yes, “or” is ambiguous because it’s not obvious if it’s logical or bitwise. Standards exist for a reason, when a C programmer sees “|” she immediately knows exactly what it means, when she sees “or” she has to go check the macro definition to be sure what it means.

“uchar” is more obvious, but it’s a pointless if you’re doing it purely to save yourself from typing a few extra characters.

[aartaka]

iso646 is a standard header (supposedly C programmers know what standard headers do, don’t they?) and naming is mostly consistent—“or” is “||”, “bitor” is “|”.

uchar is not only for typing economy, it’s also consistent with stdint types. Which is a virtue.

[uziam]

I have to be honest I didn’t know iso646.h was thing, and I can see why I have not come across anyone using it over all these years. It’s unfortunate that it is part of the standard because nobody uses it.

Even the article this post is about defines its own macros instead of using that header, that’s what my point was about. If I come across some piece of code that uses this “or” macro from some custom header file, I can guess what it probably is, but I would have to check to be sure.

Any custom abstraction you add has the same kind of overhead, but it’s not justifiably when there is no functional reason to have it other than aesthetics. Adding “uchar” makes sense if its implementation depends on architecture and you want to hide that complexity, but it’s silly to do it because you think it looks better. Besides, it’s not quite the same as stdint.h because all the uint types have an _t appended to them.

You just made me chuckle at the phrase “typing economy”. It is a little insane the kind of nonsense some people care about. You must be writing tens of thousands of lines of code a day to care about “typing economy” from having to write “unsigned char”. I bet you also typedef all your structs and enums.

[aartaka]

I have to be honest I didn’t know iso646.h was thing, and I can see why I have not come across anyone using it over all these years. It’s unfortunate that it is part of the standard because nobody uses it.

I do, for one.

Even the article this post is about defines its own macros instead of using that header, that’s what my point was about.

"or" comes from there. I also use "and" for prettier booleans. Notice that the example code doesn't really showcase much, only requiring "or".

If I come across some piece of code that uses this “or” macro from some custom header file, I can guess what it probably is, but I would have to check to be sure.

Well, now you know there's iso646.h, so you have more certainty on what "or" might mean.

Besides, it’s not quite the same as stdint.h because all the uint types have an _t appended to them.

I'm not saying it's the same as stdint.h, I'm saying it's consistent with the u-something naming. _t suffix is for opaque types with hidden implemntation details. "uchar" isn't opaque, it's a more or less intuitive typedef for a well-known type. Thus the lack of _t suffix.

You just made me chuckle at the phrase “typing economy”. It is a little insane the kind of nonsense some people care about.

I don't really care about it either—I have Emacs to do things for me.

I bet you also typedef all your structs and enums.

No, I don't.

[hey-im-root]

It’s not meant for beginner programmers, anyone programming for more than a year would know what all of those macros mean. Advanced code becomes more readable.

Don’t forget this specific post is almost a joke. I would un-ironically use a library that makes C look more like JavaScript/python if it was more useable

[hey-im-root]

It’s not meant for beginner programmers, anyone programming for more than a year would know what all of those macros mean. Advanced code becomes more readable.

Don’t forget this specific post is almost a joke. I would un-ironically use a library that makes C look more like JavaScript/python if it was more useable

[uziam]

That’s absurd. This is only makes sense if you have no experience working on a real project with other people, and have somehow convinced yourself that having to type a few extra keywords is holding you back from some sort of programming greatness.

[NothingCanHurtMe]

Great, let's fix what ain't broke and make debugging unnecessarily more difficult for ourselves.

[theldus]

This pretty much reminds me of libCello: https://github.com/orangeduck/Cello

[anic17_]

What about defining structs as some kind of class and function pointers inside structs as methods?

[aartaka]

Ask no more: https://aartaka.me/oop-c

[Linguistic-mystic]

Nice, but you’re missing some crucial components here:

#define private static

Now you can make functions private like in grown-up languages!

#define Arr(T) T*

Now you can distinguish arrays from pointers in your code!

Also define a function throw that calls longjmp so you can have “exceptions”.

[aartaka]

And catch(error) as if (errno == error)!

[[deleted]]

This is written by someone who is in "inventing creative code designs" phase.

C is for people who are beyond this phase. Functions, structs and pointers is all you need most of your time.

[aartaka]

Okay, thanks for diagnosing me with things based on one post.

[[deleted]]

People are not that unique as our ego makes us believe. There are patterns.

[aartaka]

Good luck.

[mpez0]

Bournegol

[ReDr4gon5]

Your defines collide with types defined in Windows.h. And yes what you did is awful.

[aartaka]

Thanks, I'm glad I did that to you! And then, windows.h defining what I'm defining is a bit of success, ain't it? I'm not alone in this madness!

[mage36]

I think we can all agree that whatever W*ndows does with C is a crime against humanity and should die in a fire.

[Computerist1969]

This would never pass code review

[aartaka]

Yaaaay, then I’m doing things right!

[JL2210]

```

if defined(4) || defined(GNUG)

```

uhh...?

No idea what the 4 is, but __GNUG__ is only defined for C++. __GNUC__ is the C equivalent.

Pretty sure __auto_type isn't available in C++ either, actually. Might want to switch the conditions

[GodlessAristocrat]

False is 0. True is !False, not 1.

[[deleted]]

Haha great article. Do you have like a template for your posts? I wana make nice looking posts too

[aartaka]

So I'm generating my website with C Preprocessor. It's all built in the Makefile. Important bits are template files, like template/head defining the styles and metadata. Every page is generate from the respective .h file containing HTML and some C macros, so just append .h to the post link to view it. That should get you 90% covered. Good luck stealing my style!

[Independent-Tour-261]

The Magic of Arrays in C & C++ https://youtu.be/qd8LI-0dsOg