1. 45

A good chunk of the stories tagged with C are really C++ stories. I think it’s time we separate them out so you can filter one or the other and not both.


  2. 22

    I would love this.

    Though I am not likely to filter out C++ stories; I always feel a little sadness when I discover a C-tagged story that is really C++-related.

    C++ is not a strict superset of C (it hasn’t been since at least C99); and since, the two languages have diverged dramatically with only a few features from C++ being migrated back to C.

    If a C++ tag is not created, I would, at least, argue for the C tag being renamed C-family so that it is more encompassing and so my hopes are not so high when I see it.

    1. 8

      I agree and would also not filter it out but I can see myself filtering down to just C stories. I am not interested in C++ but having a way to just list plain C articles would be useful.

      I find this similar to having FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD as separate tags - they are all BSD/Unix but different enough to warrant their own sections. C is also not C++ even if they share a common origin.

      1. 6

        D? Anybody?

        1. 3

          I don’t see much point in ‘C family’ tag, as it’s hard to recall a single article or blog post that is relevant to all of the “family” at once and is not a 1000th rant about the perils of unmanaged memory.

          1. -3


          2. 18

            Added c++ and objectivec tags.

            1. 13

              Hm, so the “C” is currently documented as “C, C++ and Objective-C”. If “C++” were split out, we should also do that with “Objective-C”.

              The question of C++ not being a superset of C, but Objective-C being one, is - in my opinion - uninteresting in this discussion, as use of their features is not at all C-like.

              That being said, I’d be in favor, for exactly that reason: most of their discussion doesn’t apply to C at all.

              1. 7

                How about also splitting the C tag into “programming in C” and “C is dangerous” tags that I can filter independently? :)

                1. -4

                  If I see another post by some noob about how pointers are the devil I’m gonna lose it.

                  1. 3

                    They certainly aren’t angels.

                    1. 2

                      SPARK doesn’t have pointers. They still write low-level code that’s effecient with no C-style vulnerabilities. Rust does that for temporal properties. Maybe we just dont need traditional pointers since we have better tools now. Why do feel a need for obsolete tech?

                  2. 3

                    Support breaking out C++ and Objective-C. These languages have enough use and popularity to justify their own tags.

                    1. 2

                      maybe c for c specifically and c-family for c++, objective c, d, vala, and the host of “little” system languages that start with c and improve on it with a few new features.

                      the rationale being that c does occupy a special niche that none of the other languages do, but other than that they all have fairly similar use cases.

                      1. -3

                        But we already have a rust tag…?