Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

14
  • 7
    MSVC is the big C++ compiler, but for C it's hard to use and permanently stuck in C89; microcontroller compilers are usually target-specific, stuck in C89, and quirky; TruffleC doesn't appear to be available yet (but is interesting, thanks). Pathscale and Digital Mars seem more like the kind of counterexamples I was looking for though. Commented Feb 19, 2015 at 8:05
  • 8
    @Mario my meaning isn't that C89 is broken, but C89 is not the up-to-date form of the language; and that does mean fewer compilers that are up-to-date exist. Commented Feb 19, 2015 at 8:42
  • 8
    @Leushenko MSVC isn't permanently stuck in C89. There have been some discussions and more C99 features should be added. For starters, most of the C99 library is supported as of MSVC 2015 and a few language features too (mainly the things needed for C++11 though). Commented Feb 19, 2015 at 9:28
  • 6
    @Morwenn: Microsoft's policy appears to be that C99 solves no problems that C++ had not already solved, and that if you're doing system programming you should be using the C-like subset of C++ (anything that doesn't require the runtime or where you can't control where the compiler is going to put things - important if you need to ensure that code or data isn't paged out from states where paging is disabled). The only features from C99 will be things required in later C++ specs, and those which are no-brainers to implement. Commented Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25
  • 2
    Update: MSVC supports C11 and C17. By default, it's C89 plus extensions, some of which are in C99. Commented Feb 21, 2021 at 16:16