charlesL's comments

Exactly what I was thinking. That would make all linux utils available to use as well.

Ugh... these kinds of extreme posts really piss me off. Yes, C is unsafe. Yes, there are safer higher level languages, but there's a reason C is used. Because it's REALLY freaking fast, and allows you to actually tune how memory is used.

The issue with C is not the language itself. It's the complexity of the project. Once a project reaches a certain size, no programmer will be able to keep the entire thing in their head at one time. That's why the bugs appear.

I have no issue with saying that C is hard to work with in giant projects. If you have an issue with that, write the sections of code that bottleneck in C, and then glue them together with a higher level language (I personally like Lua for this).

Also, the post is mainly complaining about security issues for Chrome. Assuming Chrome is rewritten in Rust or Go, will these security issues vanish? Of course not. Bugs (especially security bugs) will exist in all software, whether it's written in C or Ruby.

So the results of rewriting all C code in the world is: slower, less optimized code and continued existence of security bugs. Sounds great.

> And much of the time, I find it faster and easier to fix a broken makefile than to fix broken autohell.

Exactly. 99% of the time, a broken makefile simply has an incorrect linker path or cflag. When it's not a path, the Makefile is structured in a way that makes sense and is easy to fix. If an autoconf project is broken, I just scrap it and don't even bother trying to build it.

The other issue with autoconf is that it's not standardized. So many of the autoconf projects I've seen have shell scripts (to install it or download deps) mixed in that only add more confusion. Some of them have a configure script. Some have a configure.in, so you have to generate the configure yourself.

100% of the makefiles I've seen have a build, install and clean task. Sure, it's not required, but everybody does it. You can't say the same for autoconf.

> Make is fairly easy to learn, at least in its basic form. Autoconf is horrendous.

I completely agree. Make is extremely flexible on it's own. I don't understand the need to abstract the build system to generate thousand-line makefiles that are impossible to hand edit.

Frankly, I don't use a lot of crazy libs or IDEs when writing C code. Most of my projects consist of one or two external libs and a few simple makefiles. I use Vim and clang/gcc for compiling and lldb/gdb for debugging.

As for compiler flags, the only ones I ever worry about are `-O`, `-g`, `-c`, CFLAGS and LDFLAGS.

What I've learned is that the way C includes other files/libs is extremely simple. The header files are simply a simple mapping of the code in the `.so` or `.a`. If it's a n `.so`, you can't make it a static executable and if it's `.a` you have to.

I've never worked directly with low-level microcontroller programming, and the extent of my electronics knowledge is some fiddling with arduino. When I did that I used ino (http://inotool.org/) to compile and upload code to the board.

EDIT:

Projects that have good C code include: http://suckless.org/ and the linux kernel (and other stuff by Linus Torvalds). Avoid anything with GNU (most of it's over-engineered)

The issue with undefined behavior is it's kind of hard to... well... define. It's an odd combination of unsafe memory, float/integer rollover, and rules with memory allocation. I wasn't quite sure how to clearly state it.

Ehh, you can never have too much C! ;)

Huh, I've never actually heard of using OCaml for system programming. Interesting!

Hey author of the slides here, glad you liked it :D

I used http://remarkjs.com/ to make the slides. All you have to do is include the script, add a textfield with your content in markdown and it automatically converts to a slide show.