>>46209702>Not a problem at all.Elaborate.
>C macros work fine and do their job.They're certainly good for complicating code while adding little positive.
>Yeah, those are seen everywhere in C code.I was citing the fact that it is even possible as a flaw of sorts.
It's arcane and the fact that it took so long for people to even realize you could do it speaks volumes.
>int* myArray = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10));
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
myArray[i] = i;
}
free(myArray);
>wow. much complication. such difficult.Pass the array around now. Now you have to worry about where to free it.
>What do you think, that transistors handle special voltage values that are later translated into "true" and "false".It's called an abstraction. It should be an abstract datatype.
I don't need to fucking know how it's implemented.
>Also, C99 adds stdbool.h:>bool trueValue = true;
bool falseValue = false;
>is valid C99 code.It's a little late.
>if(do_something_risky() == -1)
{
fix_your_shit();
}
>Really difficult, yeah.Where's that standard bool?
So many functions using numbers as return values to symbolize more complicated concepts is awful.
>What do you think modules are? Magic flying things?They're collections of code.
A proper module system lets you have as many modules per file as desired and also lets you easily switch between them in the file.
>Or perhaps you don't know how to write and use headers.Headers are shit.
That's another point actually, headers are needed for every little fucking thing in C.
That's why so many programs have 20 lines of #includes.
>>46209732Sure thing, faggot.
