Hacker News

Favorites Setup
Comment by _ph_ | original | C for Rust programmers
[−]_ph_ · 2026-10-11 Sun 10:28 UTC · link
Sure, but looking at C's age, the language was changed significantly over time. With one of those changes, certain things could have been considered compile errors, not optional tooling.

Or if you turn your argument around: if people depend on workflows and automation (I do of course too), then this is a good reason to standardize the diagnostics and errors of the checking tools to the point where the workflows and automation can depend on them. Otherwise they will remain tools which are completely optional to run, or even worse, are not part of your normal work flow.

[−]uecker · 2026-10-11 Sun 10:54 UTC · link
Why "could have"? Compilers have a lot more warnings than the used to, and also defaults got more strict.
[−]pjmlp · 2026-10-11 Sun 11:41 UTC · link
ISO languages don't define tooling, so the only way would be to introduce new semantics.

However, like in any ISO languages, that only happens if enough people vote for it, and someone is willing to submit a paper in first place.