Richard Stallman Announces GNU C Language Reference Manual

[andyprough]

the Makefile already has sections to compile a pdf, html, plaintext, etc.
simply:

$ git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/c-intro-and-ref.git
$ make c.pdf
$ make c.html
$ make c.txt

Excellent, I told you I was probably doing it the hard way.

[brad0]

Wow, installing Ubuntu needs less steps nowadays.

Ubuntu can be installed in 2 steps? No. Lame.

[ATLief]

I wouldn't be surprised if RMS didn't even know what Rust is. While he made some big contributions in the beginning (despite his faults even back then), he seems just disconnected from… everything the last 15 years or so.

Careful what you say, he might be viewing this thread in Emacs or Lynx (as long as it doesn’t use any non-free JavaScript).

[coder]

A few decades late to the party, isn't he?

C17 is notably different than C89, though not as much as C++11 differed from C++98. More than enough that I'm quite shocked nobody has updated the classic text: The C Programming Language. Though it's a very good book, I wouldn't recommend the 2nd edition (which I used) to anyone learning C, today.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0131103628/

[gornor]

Wow, it's really great, maybe because I'm an old fart but I really like how he's laid it all out in an easy to read/understand format with examples. Well done Mr. Stallman.

Whoa! You looked at the document under consideration before posting about it? You must be new around here.

(P.S. At your behest I skimmed and downloaded it. Looks like a nice piece of work!)

[curfew]

Not being a C programmer myself, I have to ask: is a GNU C manual a good thing? On one hand, I believe ANSI C should be everybody's target. On the other hand, if GNU C follows ANSI C closely enough and the manual only explains choices made in the areas where the spec is lacking/undefined, then no harm, no foul.

Obviously the harm is that you are writing GCC-only code that only works on one shitty compiler and nothing else. "Undefined behavior" in the standard doesn't mean that you can do whatever, it means that you specifically shouldn't do it at all.

[coder]

Obviously the harm is that you are writing GCC-only code that only works on one shitty compiler and nothing else.

Not to disagree with your sentiment, but doesn't clang support pretty much all of GCC's extensions?

I honestly have no idea whether MSVC has picked up any GCCisms? My last experience with it was about 15 years ago, but Visual C++ had its own versions on many of the same sorts of extensions GCC had (i.e. where GCC had to invent new syntax to do something).

Then, of course, there are some proprietary embedded compilers still kicking about. Probably a lot more proprietary C compilers than C++ ones.

"Undefined behavior" in the standard doesn't mean that you can do whatever, it means that you specifically shouldn't do it at all.

Compiler devs can't avoid deciding how to implement UB, but perhaps what you mean is that it would be silly for someone to spend a lot of time documenting GCC's behavior where the standard is undefined, because users of GCC should avoid any dependencies on it.

[Displacer]

"Good choices include Lisp, Scheme, Python and Java." -RMS

And what? There is no Pascal and I am not complaining.

[archkde]

I think you are underestimating a person with a strong Lisp knowledge (and some other languages) and compiler creation skills. GCC and Emacs are his well known projects.

For me, it is worth mentioning Pascal as a first language to learn.

Who am I underestimating? I know that RMS wrote large parts of at least GCC and GNU Emacs in the beginning, that he had a large influence in the creation of all versions of the GPL, and that he always cared a lot about good documentation. I think it's a pity that he wasted a good part of the last 15 years on giving uninspiring talks against proprietary software and hampering the progress of the projects he created in the first place.

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

And what? There is no Pascal and I am not complaining.

he didn't know nim was holding his beer