Goofy platform specific cleanup and smart pointer macros published in a brand new library would almost certainly not fly in almost any "existing enormous C code base". Also the industry has had a "new optional ways to avoid specific footguns" for decades, it's called using a memory safe language with a C ffi.

▲

kstrauser 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I meant the collective bulk of legacy C code running the world that we can’t just rewrite in Rust in a finite and reasonable amount of time (however much I’d be all on board with that if we could).

There are a million internal C apps that have to be tended and maintained, and I’m glad to see people giving those devs options. Yeah, I wish we (collectively) could just switch to something else. Until then, yay for easier upgrade alternatives!

▲

mightyham 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I was also, in fact, referring to the bulk of legacy code bases that can't just be fully rewritten. Almost all good engineering is done incrementally, including the adoption of something like safe_c.h (I can hardly fathom the insanity of trying to migrate a million LOC+ of C to that library in a single go). I'm arguing that engineering effort would be better spent refactoring and rewriting the application in a fully safe language one small piece at a time.

▲

kstrauser 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not sure I agree with that, especially if there were easy wins that could make the world less fragile with a much smaller intermediate effort, eg with something like FilC.

I wholeheartedly agree that a future of not-C is a much better long term goal than one of improved-C.

▲

uecker an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't really agree, at least if the future looks like Rust. I much prefer C and I think an improved C can be memory safe even without GC.

▲

whytevuhuni an hour ago | parent [-]

> I think an improved C can be memory safe even without GC

That's a very interesting belief. Do you see a way to achieve temporal memory safety without a GC, and I assume also without lifetimes?

	▲	uecker 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A simple pointer ownership model can achieve temporal memory safety, but I think to be convenient to use we may need lifetimes. I see no reason this could not be added to C.