Talk:C (programming language)

Mention of C allowing various memory allocations schemes

Jochen Burghardt removed this section on C allowing various memory allocation implementations:

C permits the use and implementation of different memory allocation schemes, including a typical malloc and free; a more sophisticated mechanism with arenas; or a version for an OS kernel that may suit DMA, use within interrupt handlers, or integrated with the virtual memory system.

With the edit summary "malloc is not built in in C, but a library function, and could be provided for every other language in a similar way". It's actually not true that you can do this in every other language, it depends on directly manipulating and storing pointers for one thing, which most languages do not do. The passage doesn't say malloc is part of C itself, in fact it implies the opposite - it lists malloc as one possibility. I disagree with this removal. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As I understand the title of this article, it is about the C programming language itself; there is a different article C standard library. "The passage doesn't say malloc is part of C itself" - this is the reason why I think it shouldn't be discussed here, but at C standard library. As a side remark, malloc can be implemented as is in every language that supports pointers, and with slight modifications in every language that supports arrays (having arbitrary type casts in the language will increase user convenience). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring to restore your preferred version.

We can wait for input from more people. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't edit C (programming language) after my above reply. The anonymous IP 193.162.48.193 vandalized an article part that is unrelated to our above discussion, and I assure that it wasn't me. Admittedly, my 2nd revert might have violated a strict interpretation of WP:BRD; however, I gave a long justification in my edit summary. Waiting for opinions from other people is ok for me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The goal of this the overall section is to explain and justify the wide adoption of C as a systems programming language. The section in question states that C permits choice in dynamic memory allocators - a good justification, since operating systems and similar often control memory for other processes. Options range from the usual stdlib.h to very machine-specific ones. This flexibility is a feature of the language. Only one of the choices pertains to the standard library and its malloc - the others do not - and indeed there is already a link in the debated section to C dynamic memory allocation.

If there are improvements to be made, then let's make them! But I agree with DIYeditor and disagree with the removal. Chumpih ^t 20:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate sections on related languages - merge?

There appears to be two similar sections in the main article: Relations to other languages and Related languages. Former is a list within the Overview section; latter is an exposition on the influence of C, sitting near the end of the article.

Should we consider these as duplicates, and merge them to one location? Or are we happy with the different emphasis on the somewhat similar content, and leave well alone? Or Perhaps replace the first section with a sentence and keep the latter section? Or something else? Chumpih ^t 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

C is a compiled language

A compiled language is "typically" compiled according to Wikipedia. I would like to add "compiled" to describe C. In fact, C is one of the most common languages, if not the most common language, cited as an example of a compiled language. Chris.temp.level.0 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vincent Lefèvre and Jkudlick: The issue seems to be this edit which inserted "compiled" before "general-purpose programming language" in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, information in the introduction should be a summary of what is in the body of the article and it looks as if one reason given for a revert was doubt about whether the information is in the body. Bear in mind that the lead already refers to "compile" in a couple of places: "C compilers" + "designed to be compiled" + "can be compiled". People like fiddling and Google tells us that C interpreters exist although of course if the term "compiled language" has any meaning, it certainly applies to C. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, Chris.temp.level.0, and Vincent Lefèvre: I was only involved insofar as this article has pending changes protection and I happened to review a pending change that had already been reverted. As I stated on my talk page, I would have accepted the edit if it had not already been reverted. I am glad to see Chris has engaged in discussion here to reach consensus, and I will leave the discussion to those with much better knowledge of this subject than me. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jkudlick, Johnuniq, and Chris.temp.level.0: I think that "designed to be compiled" already present in the LEDE is sufficient. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Chumpih ^t 14:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove {{harvtxt}} templates?

The article has several {{harvtxt}} references within it, leading to shortened references that have to be clicked through to get to a second link to the reference within the Sources section, which can then be clicked to see the source. The shortened references use the {{cite Q}} template, which dereferences wikidata. It would appear that there are multiple wikidata entries in this article's Sources section that are pointing to the same source. More info is at harvtext template usage and Template:Cite_Q.
There are four of them, compared to the 60ish more common references in the References. An example is HERE
Any objections to these four {{harvtxt}} references being removed, (along with the Sources section) and replaced with standard Cites, alongside the 60ish other cites? Chumpih ^t 23:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't see a reason why that would be the ideal CITEVAR for this article. Remsense 🌈 论 23:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections at all, and would prefer to have either all long or all short (either is fine), but not the random mix there is now. I am currently trying to untangle the THREE sources to the 1993 Ritchie paper, but stepped away for the moment because {{cite Q}} is annoying me. I was also thinking the {{harvtxt}}s should be {{efn}}s, but hadn't started focusing on that yet. Elrondil (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

While the Ritchie source it is a very, very good paper, I totally agree, three refs to it is a little over-the-top.😁
Ok, given this approbation, and unless someone objects in the next 24h or so, I'll remove the Sources section, and change the Ritchie refs etc. to {{cite}}s. Chumpih ^t 06:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, @Elrondil, I note that some of the {{harvtxt}} links have been changed to {{efn}}s with {{sfnp}} references HERE and similar. Are we still OK to remove the Sources section, the {{Cite Q}}s, and move to more typical {{cite}}s? Chumpih ^t 06:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chumpih: Oops, I forgot one {{harvtxt}}, so just moved that to {{sfnp}}s ... just wanted to finish what I had started :-). I still "prefer to have either all long or all short (either is fine), but not the random mix there is now." So I'm OK for you to move the {{sfnp}}s to refs (or {{r}}s?!?!). But I think regressing the {{cite Q}}s to ordinary {{cite book}} etc. is a bad move, so don't agree with that ... {{cite Q}}s enable data normalization and all the benefits that come with that. However, I'm not sure Remsense agrees with dropping the {{sfnp}}s after reading their response from a few days ago again. Elrondil (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a 'negative' request, saying 'any objections', which was unclear of me - apologies. So the reply above from @Remsense could do with clarification. Chumpih ^t 06:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry 😀.

If only we, the writers, expressed citations in a way that permitted them, the readers, to elect how THEY want to SEE the blimmin' citations and then let Wikipedia render the citations into whatever format a particular reader has chosen to see them (i.e., long, short, mixed, whatever), there wouldn't be a need for all this consensus BS, where a small set of writers (usually the most recent and most aggressive mob) decides for EVERYONE how they should "eat their meal". Its ridiculous, uncivil, and technologically quite unnecessary. Elrondil (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, so do we settle on standard {{cite}} references for all, (i.e. change them into the same format as the other 60-odd) or do we want to have these 5 (or is it 2) references in the Sources section using different mechanisms, with limited hover-over info, and an additional click required to get to the source? Chumpih ^t 19:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chumpih: What do you mean by "standard {{cite}}"? If you mean replacing the short citations using {{sfnp}} with long citations using <ref></ref>{{rp}}s while retaining the {{cite Q}}s, you have my OK but this also needs a clear and unambiguous OK from Remsense for there to be the required consensus. I see no reason to revert from {{cite Q}}s to {{cite book}}s etc.

Elrondil (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in my browser, hovering over a short citation opens a flyover with short citation details, and when I hover on THAT it opens a flyover with the long citation details … so I click just once. Elrondil (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not as straightforward as {{cite}}. Chumpih ^t 17:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

True, there is an extra "level of indirection", but which enables (1) moving of the page or location from being inline to that extra level of indirection and (2) more control over how the long citations are organised. I see the benefits and costs of both approaches, and personally I think that should be the reader's choice (through a configuration setting), but instead Wikipedia editors have spend decades fighting over this, and will continue to … until each individual reader gets to choose how they feel at any moment: light mode or dark mode, sans serif or serif font, large text or small text, long citations or short citations, DMY or MDY dates, American or British or Australian or Hibernian or Indian English, metric or imperial units first, and so on.

In the meantime, we can still try to be as consistent as possible for the sake of readability by Wikipedia readers (that is, not author-centric but reader-centric), and to link any short and long citations that ARE there to pick up and correct mismatches (there are plenty) and at least ENABLE that extra hover or click instead of leaving it to readers to manually having to make the connection. Instead we have this ridiculous Lilliputian but cleverly-named WP:CITEVAR (or "Cite War") stand off with both short and long at the same time in the same articles. Elrondil (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So do you object to removing the Sources section and changing the remaining handful of {{sfnp}} (formerly {{harvtxt}} ) cites to become {{cite}}s like the other 60 on the page? Chumpih ^t 06:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not object to you changing the {{sfnp}} short citations to <ref></ref>{{rp}} or {{r}} long citations.

I do object to you replacing {{cite Q}}s with {{cite book}} etc (if that is what you also wanted to do).

I do object to you doing this without unambiguous consensus with Remsense. Elrondil (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chumpih: However, if there does end up being consensus for regressing the normalizing {{cite Q}}s to de-normalized {{cite book}}s etc., that could easily be done by adding |expand=yes to the {{cite Q}}s and taking it from there. Elrondil (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

But what are "standard Cites"? 😀 There is no such thing in Wikipedia and everyone does what they want anyway. Elrondil (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, true, true! Chumpih ^t 06:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)