5 ms·

I've seen this mentioned several times. Is there a resource you recommend on the 'new ways'? Asking out of curiosity, about to start a side project with C, and

by loungin 14y ago

I've seen this mentioned several times. Is there a resource you recommend on the 'new ways'? Asking out of curiosity, about to start a side project with C, and I do have the text mentioned.

signa11 14y ago
'c interfaces and implementation' would qualify as one imho...
- Erwin 14y ago
  That was good. Also, "Deep C Secrets": http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/0131774298 http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp...
telemachos 14y ago
O'Reilly has a forthcoming book 21st Century C[1] by Ben Klements. I haven't read it yet, but it clearly aims to be a new look at C programming. [1]: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025108.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025108.do
kragen 14y ago
Hmm, here are some things that I do routinely that don't really show up: ꙮ I always use enum instead of #define for numeric constants. ꙮ I nearly always use inline instead of #define for small functions whose efficiency worries me. ꙮ As a result of those two things, I don't use #define much. ꙮ Everything global is static unless it's in the public API provided by the file. ꙮ I use dynamic allocation a lot more than the C in the K&R book. ꙮ I avoid integer function arguments and return values as much as possible, because they're basically untyped, and I benefit from the limited static type checking done by C compilers. I still use them for cases where I'm actually counting or measuring something, and unfortunately for bitfields. When I'm counting bytes, the correct type is usually size_t or ptrdiff_t, which benefits humans and LP64 platforms, but doesn't get you much static type checking benefit. ꙮ As a result of those two things, I use arrays relatively sparingly. ꙮ I basically never use function-static variables because they make thread-safety very difficult if not impossible. ꙮ Use const wherever applicable. It catches some errors, and it's not nearly as draconian as in C++, so it doesn't cause as many problems. ꙮ After some experience with C++, I usually "typedef struct foo foo", since it costs me two words in the declaration and saves me the "struct" every time I use "foo" later. I don't know if these are the kinds of things people mean when they talk about new ways of coding in C, or where to find them documented.
- frou_dh 14y ago
  I like that idea of using a (presumably unnamed) enum as a bag of constants that aren't necessarily related. From the small amount of Go I tried, its syntax for constants seemed a more evolved version of that. What do you think is the minimum realistic preprocessor usage that can be got away with? #include + #pragma once?
  - kragen 14y ago
    You don't need #pragma once if you don't include .h files in other .h files, or if you only have a single .h file that includes other .h files. This may sound unrealistic but there are real projects that work that way. You probably do need #include.
  - gosu 14y ago
    I'd say that it's bad to put #pragma once in your minimal set, since it's nonstandard. Why not use plain old include guards? For me, container_of() is also indispensable. Although maybe it's on the level of 'errno' as being "not really a dirty macro".
    - frou_dh 14y ago
      I know - I was just spitballing the minimum number, since guards require conditionals too. Though, portability aside, you have to agree that it's simply nicer, since it plainly states the intent without requiring a little dance each time.
- telemachos 14y ago
  > ꙮ I always use enum instead of #define for numeric constants. I'm new to C (and very much a self-taught amateur), but what's the advantage of this? (No snark - I just don't see it.) I have a file at hand with this: #define MAXLINE 512 How would that be improved by putting it in an enum instead?
  - kragen 14y ago
    The advantage is smallest for things like that, which you'd put in a nameless enum. To my eyes, there's still a better signal-to-noise ratio in max_line = 512, than in #define MAXLINE 512 but I agree that the difference is small. In some cases, your code is more readable if you can define more than one constant per line, and the difference becomes larger: min_x = 20, min_y = 20, max_x = 8.5*72 - 20, max_y = 11*72 - 20, Beyond that, non-anonymous enums have the additional advantages that you can define them closer to where they're used, and the debugger knows how to print them.
frou_dh 14y ago
This is an explicit goal of Mr Shaw's book: http://c.learncodethehardway.org http://c.learncodethehardway.org
pjmlp 14y ago
Sorry, I cannot advise there for new ways, because since 2001 I've moved into JVM/.NET/C++, depending on the project am assigned to. However, I've kept an eye on the C99 and C11 standards processes, and at least in Germany there are a few authors with books about those standards. But it is not the same as having the famous C book updated to the latest standards. Mainly as a collector item, in my case.
gosu 14y ago
For me, modern C means modern C features more than modern C style. I use the following "new" features all the time: compound literals, designated initializers, variadic macros, and anonymous arrays. Dr. Dobbs did a nice series on C99 features, so I'd recommend that as a supplement to K&R. http://www.drdobbs.com/the-new-c-compound-literals/184401404 http://www.drdobbs.com/the-new-c-compound-literals/184401404

by loungin 14y ago

I've seen this mentioned several times. Is there a resource you recommend on the 'new ways'? Asking out of curiosity, about to start a side project with C, and I do have the text mentioned.

signa11 14y ago

'c interfaces and implementation' would qualify as one imho...

Erwin 14y ago
That was good. Also, "Deep C Secrets": http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/0131774298 http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp...

telemachos 14y ago

O'Reilly has a forthcoming book 21st Century C[1] by Ben Klements. I haven't read it yet, but it clearly aims to be a new look at C programming. [1]: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025108.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025108.do

kragen 14y ago

Hmm, here are some things that I do routinely that don't really show up: ꙮ I always use enum instead of #define for numeric constants. ꙮ I nearly always use inline instead of #define for small functions whose efficiency worries me. ꙮ As a result of those two things, I don't use #define much. ꙮ Everything global is static unless it's in the public API provided by the file. ꙮ I use dynamic allocation a lot more than the C in the K&R book. ꙮ I avoid integer function arguments and return values as much as possible, because they're basically untyped, and I benefit from the limited static type checking done by C compilers. I still use them for cases where I'm actually counting or measuring something, and unfortunately for bitfields. When I'm counting bytes, the correct type is usually size_t or ptrdiff_t, which benefits humans and LP64 platforms, but doesn't get you much static type checking benefit. ꙮ As a result of those two things, I use arrays relatively sparingly. ꙮ I basically never use function-static variables because they make thread-safety very difficult if not impossible. ꙮ Use const wherever applicable. It catches some errors, and it's not nearly as draconian as in C++, so it doesn't cause as many problems. ꙮ After some experience with C++, I usually "typedef struct foo foo", since it costs me two words in the declaration and saves me the "struct" every time I use "foo" later. I don't know if these are the kinds of things people mean when they talk about new ways of coding in C, or where to find them documented.

frou_dh 14y ago
I like that idea of using a (presumably unnamed) enum as a bag of constants that aren't necessarily related. From the small amount of Go I tried, its syntax for constants seemed a more evolved version of that. What do you think is the minimum realistic preprocessor usage that can be got away with? #include + #pragma once?
- kragen 14y ago
  You don't need #pragma once if you don't include .h files in other .h files, or if you only have a single .h file that includes other .h files. This may sound unrealistic but there are real projects that work that way. You probably do need #include.
- gosu 14y ago
  I'd say that it's bad to put #pragma once in your minimal set, since it's nonstandard. Why not use plain old include guards? For me, container_of() is also indispensable. Although maybe it's on the level of 'errno' as being "not really a dirty macro".
  - frou_dh 14y ago
    I know - I was just spitballing the minimum number, since guards require conditionals too. Though, portability aside, you have to agree that it's simply nicer, since it plainly states the intent without requiring a little dance each time.
telemachos 14y ago
> ꙮ I always use enum instead of #define for numeric constants. I'm new to C (and very much a self-taught amateur), but what's the advantage of this? (No snark - I just don't see it.) I have a file at hand with this: #define MAXLINE 512 How would that be improved by putting it in an enum instead?
- kragen 14y ago
  The advantage is smallest for things like that, which you'd put in a nameless enum. To my eyes, there's still a better signal-to-noise ratio in max_line = 512, than in #define MAXLINE 512 but I agree that the difference is small. In some cases, your code is more readable if you can define more than one constant per line, and the difference becomes larger: min_x = 20, min_y = 20, max_x = 8.5*72 - 20, max_y = 11*72 - 20, Beyond that, non-anonymous enums have the additional advantages that you can define them closer to where they're used, and the debugger knows how to print them.

frou_dh 14y ago

This is an explicit goal of Mr Shaw's book: http://c.learncodethehardway.org http://c.learncodethehardway.org

pjmlp 14y ago

Sorry, I cannot advise there for new ways, because since 2001 I've moved into JVM/.NET/C++, depending on the project am assigned to. However, I've kept an eye on the C99 and C11 standards processes, and at least in Germany there are a few authors with books about those standards. But it is not the same as having the famous C book updated to the latest standards. Mainly as a collector item, in my case.

gosu 14y ago

For me, modern C means modern C features more than modern C style. I use the following "new" features all the time: compound literals, designated initializers, variadic macros, and anonymous arrays. Dr. Dobbs did a nice series on C99 features, so I'd recommend that as a supplement to K&R. http://www.drdobbs.com/the-new-c-compound-literals/184401404 http://www.drdobbs.com/the-new-c-compound-literals/184401404