Youre mission: Free the C standard committee

From the ENTERPRISERS and the Microsofts
Examples of them being hurt/harmful: C11 Annex K (bad copy-paste of MS's "safe" functions, see http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1118.htm), C11 Threads and atomics, the C11 aligned_alloc function is made to match MS's one, etc

C is for shittards. D is the future nigga

>>2
What if I am not a homosexual?

Good luck in starting your own C standard committee for nobody in the current committe would care about your standard.

>>4
I don't want to create a new one, I want to stop them from fucking the standard
Just look at the list of the people in the committee, it's full of people form MS, HP and other companies like this

>>5
You can't stop the current committee from doing its thing. The only things you can do are either refuse to use the new standard OR start your own standard committee to direct things your own way. I suggest refusing to use the new standard in your own projects.

C is dead

>>7
There sure are a lot of necrophiliacs out there then.

>>1
The _s family of functions is a travesty on so many levels. Their sole proponent, Microsoft, doesn't even implement them as specified by the standard!

Just compare the behavior described at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8ef0s5kh.aspx to TR 24731 - in order to achieve behavior resembling the standard, anyone using Microsoft's C runtime library must call a Microsoft specific function, _set_invalid_parameter_handler, and register a do-nothing function to allow invocations of _s functions to return without killing the whole program. Why Microsoft would push to get this garbage of theirs standardized and then ignore the standard is beyond me.

>>9
What about concurrency though?

>>1
Relax. No one but Microsoft will ever implement the so called safe functions library. Everyone knows it's bullshit except Microsoft-loving plebs who honestly believe it makes their programs more safe. Microsoft doesn't even implement their own shit properly, they kept all identifiers prefixed with "_" even though it's a standard now.

After all, Microsoft doesn't care, it's a soulless corporation filled with beta nerds just trying to make a dollar off the rotting corpse of the dead giant, and indian programmers who used to shit in the streets when they were growing up.

The C11 threads and atomics library is okay, although the threads library could use an extra few features, and perhaps expose one additional primitive to make writing atomic data-structures more efficient: the event-count. Other than that, it's a subset of pthreads.

>>9
I didn't know Microsoft was even trying to keep up with the standards. It would shock me if VC++ had more than a small team of curryniggers working on the non-dotNET parts.

>>12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9TZl96YEQ#t=75

>>10
u mena *_r?

>>11,9
look at this shit! What the hell is even the point of rsize_t if the standard wants it to be typedefed to size_t
C11:
int vsnprintf_s(char * restrict s, rsize_t n,
const char * restrict format, va_list arg);

MS:
int vsnprintf_s(
char *buffer,
size_t sizeOfBuffer,
size_t count,
const char *format,
va_list argptr
);

Microsoft is bringing C into the modern age.

>>16
Microsoft doesn't even support C you doofus. The closest they have is (C++)--

>>15
The *nprintf() functions were always sketchy anyways. What is returned when the buffer size argument is larger than INT_MAX (could be more likely on a 16-bit system)?

>>17
Apparently they're working on it. Nevertheless: why did they create C# first and then decided to spit into the soup of others afterwards? Do they want to EEE C after they noticed they couldn't lock in a majority of people with C#?

Nevertheless: why did they create C# first and then decided to spit into the soup of others afterwards? Do they want to EEE C after they noticed they couldn't lock in a majority of people with C#?

They supported C++ first, specifically this obscure dialect called C++/CLI, only to later create C# as a separate language since they were already relying on non-portable extensions in their C++ code already. Current C support is pretty much limited to a C90 compatibility mode in their C++ compiler. Supposedly much of the OS is (or was) written in C, and compiled using the same compilers that are available to the public, which makes me wonder how exactly they did it when their compiler has such poor C support. I doubt the fundamental portions of Windows can be written entirely in C90 and asm, considering that even Linux isn't written in plain C99 or C11, but instead depends on extensions from the GNU dialect.