> This is entirely true, but at the same time:
Compiler vendors are people, and in fact, if you don't like that set of people, there are plenty of vendors who have forks :)
With all due respect, but that sounds a bit like "if you don't like this particular law, you're always free to try a coup/revolution/run your own country".
I don't know much about the situation in standardized C, but I would argue that the point of standards is to reduce fragmentation and discuss language features in a way that all implementation can benefit from it. Demanding that you break the standard if you don't like a part of it kind of defeats that point, I think.
A different (and IMO more sensible) approach is shown by the WHATWG developing HTML5. Even though input primarily comes from browser vendors (which would be the equivalent to compiler vendors here), there is a rather strict requirement that new features must break a little as possible existing usage of HTML and should never introduce new security vulnerabilities. (Where those requirements collide, the second one takes precedence). This is done by extensive studies of how HTML is used "in the wild".
"With all due respect, but that sounds a bit like "if you don't like this particular law, you're always free to try a coup/revolution/run your own country".
"
IMHO, it's closer to, if you don't like SF, you can move to any of the cities around it :)
"Demanding that you break the standard if you don't like a part of it kind of defeats that point, I think."
Which, humorously, is precisely what Anton wants in some cases.
"A different (and IMO more sensible) approach is shown by the WHATWG developing HTML5. Even though input primarily comes from browser vendors (which would be the equivalent to compiler vendors here), there is a rather strict requirement that new features must break a little as possible existing usage of HTML and should never introduce new security vulnerabilities. (Where those requirements collide, the second one takes precedence). This is done by extensive studies of how HTML is used "in the wild"."
This is in actuality, how most of C/C++ is developed. With a bit more formality due to it being an international standard.
The truth is this code has pretty much never had defined behavior.
With all due respect, but that sounds a bit like "if you don't like this particular law, you're always free to try a coup/revolution/run your own country".
I don't know much about the situation in standardized C, but I would argue that the point of standards is to reduce fragmentation and discuss language features in a way that all implementation can benefit from it. Demanding that you break the standard if you don't like a part of it kind of defeats that point, I think.
A different (and IMO more sensible) approach is shown by the WHATWG developing HTML5. Even though input primarily comes from browser vendors (which would be the equivalent to compiler vendors here), there is a rather strict requirement that new features must break a little as possible existing usage of HTML and should never introduce new security vulnerabilities. (Where those requirements collide, the second one takes precedence). This is done by extensive studies of how HTML is used "in the wild".