I don't see that as a problem. C has been the bedrock of computing since the 1970s because it is the most minimal way of speaking to the hardware in a mostly portable way. Anything can be done in C, from writing hardware drivers, to GUI applications and scientific computing. In fact I deplore the day people stopped using C for desktop applications and moved to bloated, sluggish Web frameworks to program desktop apps. Today's desktop apps are slower than Windows 95 era GUI programs because of that.

▲

mjg59 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ok you're still missing the point. This isn't about C being good or bad or suitable or unsuitable. It's about whether it's good that C has, through no deliberate set of choices, ended up embodying the interface that lets us build rust that can be called by go.

▲

drnick1 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, because C is, by virtue of its history and central role in the development of all mainstream operating systems, the lowest common denominator.

Also, if I remember correctly, the first Rust and Go compilers were written in C.

	▲	mjg59 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes! It's easy to see why we got here, but that doesn't mean it's the optimal outcome!
	▲	zorobo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		OCaml was used for rust.

▲

Ygg2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't see that as a problem.

It kinda is. Because it was made in the 1970s, and it shows (cough null-terminated strings uncough).

Or you know having a 64-bit wide integer. Reliably.

You did read the article, right?