Is the RW: C and the Internet era? BS: Of course, C code is not suitable for downloading into an insecure computer; however, most computers are not like this. C is the best language about system programming and some resource constraints and / or some serious performance requirements. Google is an example. The embedded system for operating a small application (gadgets) is another example. Also, there are many programs that are not interacting directly with the Internet. There is not much change in these programs world. RW: For the language independent brought by the .NET platform, what do you think is what the impact on the C ? BS: There are many groups related to C . Some programmers work and closely bundle in an execution environment (such as .NET, a specific embedded system, or a specific Unix variant). For these people, they are most concerned about smoothing and their platform integration. The attention of C in Microsoft .NET, there is still enough, so C will still be a major language; however, many emphasizable focus will inevitably put on the integration of platforms and code written in other languages. Interoperability. For a long time, people will lose some serious platform dependencies to get some language independence. This will prevent C 's more new part of the experiment, but so many C programmers use the stupid restrictions, in the short-term .NET can really stimulate better C . That is to say, my heart and the programmer who fights for platform-independent and portability. As a programmer, thin, thin (Thin) interface and platform-independent library will be used as a focus. The ISO standard bundles the C sub-community together and blocks the C language to become a dialect of a mess. RW: ISO / ANSI C Standards Committee began to discuss changes and expansions on C language and libraries. What is the extension you most want to see, or which one is your strongest against? BS: My most common point of view is very simple: we should be cautious to treat language extensions and strongly demand standard libraries. My reason is almost as simple: we need to improve transplantability and stability, which cannot be obtained from a changed language. The library is different. If we get a "DUD" library, users can get a better alternative to ignore it, or to build a better implementation that is better than from their compiler provider (Implement- at. People recently have more and more expectations of programming languages, and they don't talk about the language of this result, and those demand can be easily achieved by improving the size of the standard library; especially we like I / O The standard library is expanded as a framework (Framework). A successful extension of a language requires guidance (Direction) and the successful guidance of the core of the standard library. In the language, I like to pay attention to the more unity and more easily learned awareness (Facilities). So how do the programmers have made their work in addition to language details? The most important impact will be from the new stuff available from the standard library. A bigger standard library not only saves workload, but also teaches people skills and styles. An early C problem is to provide a good support for OO programming, but C does not provide a good library to demonstrate ooo to the user. This leads to a lot of confusion and myth. The introduction of generic programming is better, the most important thing is that STL provides a specific example to use and learn. I only hope that I have the same good and useful examples about the use of exception.
I am doing a library called XTI (Extended Type Information), providing an interface to Universal C type information in Introspection and Program Transformation (Transformation). I hope to see the things like this in the standard library. Overall, I hope to see better support for distributed programming, and I believe that it should be the main library should be added. RW: What is the most important trend in the C programming you see? BS: C The world is too big, it is difficult to know that the Dongdong you see is the trend. I want to have a huge growth in C in embedded groups, but I am not sure. I know that there is an increase in interest in "Template Metaprogramming", "Generic Programming", and "Generative Pro- gramming", but I can't affirm it has a broad base. I suspect that these are hot topics in the pioneer and scholars, but not all, new technologies will enter mainstream in the next few years. There are now more and more C open source projects, but I am not sure. C The world is too big, a person is hard to understand. New technology is ranging programming and new language tools, such as template exceptions into open source communities with very slow speed, and use my appetite. Of course it is too slow. I hope to see an open source project accept more modern programming styles. This conservative situation is because open source groups cannot just "send their contributions with a course" to ensure that all people have the same and new tools and technologies. RW: C has reached the programmer when the programmer needs a C design standard when the design criteria are automatically turned to C ? BS: No, the world is not so simple. Programmers, like everyone, is affected by the occupational market. Programmers, like everyone, I like to overestimate the new stuff (excessive hype), underestimate the real shortcomings (almost not mentioned), and confident that they will lose anything else. Note that sometimes C is a "new language", and people go to it on the top of it and its technical strengths and weaknesses. In the ideal world, people objectively choose their needs. In the true world, we are very subjective, and rarely know the future needs. In some cases, we will be disappointed. RW: Not like Java, C # and VB, no one has C . In this case, C is more like Linux and other open source sports. However, it seems that there is no urgent need to enjoy and open the source code. why? BS: C is actual, revolutionary language, and C is no political, unless you want to put "no dialect, by ISO Standards Committee" as polite. Also, the supporters of different opinions are unfair to depict C into M $ language. Another problem may be that I pay more attention to performance and size, which has little attractive to newcomers and students. Then, the speculation I don't like is an effective way to enter the market. RW: How do you see how you look at the provider of the "dialect" library? BS: As an editor of the "C in Depth" series of Addison-Wesley, I tried to select interesting and important topics, of course, there is still a good author. I like to make the library as a way to make ideas and skills; this is why you can discover a good book in Ace, Loki and BGL. Each example idea is less known to everyone and is not widely used as I expect. However, this does not mean that I think the library introduced in this series is perfect. I have always hope that there is a better library.
