Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
C is an old language. For instance, did you know that there would be no problem to use the . operator instead of the -> operator with pointers and that the -> was maintained for legacy reasons? see here.
Studying several C code, one can notice that most of the time structs are passed around using pointers instead of by value. Arrays are also passed by pointer.
Would be possible to change the syntax to pass structures by default as pointers? For instance, consider the following example:
struct Point {
float x;
float y;
};
struct Line {
Point! p0; // ! means that we want a value, not a pointer
Point! p1;
};
struct Line2 {
Point p0; // would be the same as Point*
Point p1;
}
void foobar(Line line) { // would mean Line* line
...
}
void foobaz(Line! line) { // would mean Line line
...
}
Let's not consider readability, for instance, some argue that -> makes explicit that is a pointer. That's not the point here.
Here is the question: what possible problems or corner cases could arise from using such syntax? For example: 'using such syntax, it would be impossible to do this or that'
Java actually works similar to this proposal: everything is a pointer under the hood. The difference is that Java has garbage collector and objects are always allocated in the heap (the object itself, not the 'pointer') while in C structs can be allocated in the stack (although most of the time I see allocated in the heap).
If one wonders why I am asking this, it is because I am creating a programming language for low level development and I want to optimize the syntax for the common case. Although I like the C language syntax itself, I've got frustated by having to use headers (update function signature in two places, for instance), lack of support for function overload (I don't like to write int_list_add, float_list_add) and similar.
Thank you all who already replied, but I am not trying to modify C. This is a research for my language that I don't have pretension to be used by others.
My language is for low-level development trying as much as possible to use high level stuff like OO stuff, high level functions, closures and so on. It won't be garbaged collector, using a memory model similar to C (similar, not equal).
The language will have pointers just as C: you can get the address of some variable, deference a pointer.
If it is so important to ask the question that I asked, here go the syntax of my language which, by the way, it is totally different from C, a proof that I am not trying to create a C clone.
record Point:
x : float
y : float
record Line:
p0 : Point!
p1 : Point!
record Line2:
p0 : Point
p1 : Point
function foobar : void
#line : Line
function foobaz : void
#line : Line!
As I've said, I want to optime the syntax of my language for the common case. So if I am going to pass by pointer almost all the time, I don't want to be using a * again, and again and again. The only problem (and this has nothing to do with my programming skills, but is philosofical issue) is that I can't see problems that could arise from not specifying explicitly that is a pointer.
You can change the syntax and the semantics (actually; much more important than just syntax) of C, but you should not call that language C anymore.
C is a standard language; read first the wikipage on C11 and the n1570 draft (or buy, from ISO or your national standard body, the paper equivalent)
I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if and how ISO is legally protecting the standard. (However, be sure that if you call your stuff C, people would surely laugth at you).
For example: 'using such syntax, it would be impossible to do this or that'
Nothing would be impossible (both your language and the C language are Turing-complete). Some things might become more inconvenient.
BTW, you don't describe precisely enough what you are thinking about (examples are not describing programming languages, and you don't explain semantics aspects). So we can't comment on it.
Read several programming languages specifications, including not only n1570 but also n3337 (close to C++11 specification) and of course R5RS (a short, well written, specification of some Scheme dialect)
At last, be sure to implement your programming language (and name it differently than C). I recommend to implement it as some free software (e.g. on github) and to bootstrap your compiler.
So try to specify your language as well as C, or C++, or Scheme are specified. Then implement. You could need decades of work, and you certainly need several years.
Read at first the Dragon Book, SICP & Lisp In Small Pieces. Read also about Denotational Semantics
Consider implementing your language with the help of libraries like GCCJIT or LLVM, or by compiling it to C. Then you'll have a "proof-of-concept" implementation. Have fun doing it.
By implementing your language, you'll discover its semantics traps. (I love doing that).
Look also into other languages, like Ada, Go, Ocaml, Rust, Modula, Cyclone, Scheme, C++ (perhaps you are reinventing its references, or its smart pointers), Common Lisp ....
Read Scott's Programming Languages Pragmatics book.
Related
I was playing around with an online PDP11 emulator (link) and was looking at the programming section of its FAQ.
It says this about programming in C on the emulator:
You need to write pre-K&R C which is quite a bit different from modern C
I believe this is referring to the version of C in use before the publication of The C Programming Language. I have tried to understand this version by reading the sparse C files I can find in the emulator's filesystem, but even simple things like declaring argc and argv have eluded me. I also can't find anything about it online.
Is there any documentation, written at the time or after the fact, on "pre-K&R" C?
For this sort of question, my go-to source is the archived web page of the late Dennis Ritchie:
https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/
From there it's one click to this early reference manual for C, written by Ritchie himself:
https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cman.pdf
This is indeed "pre-K&R C", featuring anachronisms such as =+ instead of +=.
This is the same reference manual that appeared, in updated form, as Appendix A in the K&R book.
On the same page are links to several other versions of that reference manual, as well as notes about and even the source code of two early versions of Ritchie's compiler. These are pretty fun to look at, although as the page notes, "You won't be able to compile them with today's compilers".
There's a whole Stack Exchange site dedicated to questions like these: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/.
Steve Summit answered about where to get the documentation. So this post is intended to summarize noticeable differences from modern C
Types for function arguments were quite different. They were not specified within the parenthesis
void foo(a, b)
int a;
float b;
{
// Function body
}
No row comments, like //. Only /* */
No logical or and and. The operators && and || did not exist. The bitwise operators & and | were used instead.
=- meant the same as -=, which lead to ambiguity with for instance x=-1.
There was no void pointers. char pointers were used instead.
One could not declare variables in the for header, so one had to write:
int i=0;
for(i=0; i<N; ++i)
= were only used for assignments and not initialization. Those were done like this: int x 3;
Implicit int. This is still valid in modern C. The difference is that no (sane) programmer is using it anymore. This:
foo 3;
is actually equivalent to
int foo = 3;
There was no const qualifier
if I am developing a C shared library and I have my own structs. To make common operations on these struct instances easier for library consumers, can I provide function pointers to such functions inside the struct itself? Is it a good practice? Would there be issues with respect to multithreading where a utility function is called in parallel with different arguments and so on?
I know it goes a lot closer to C++ classes but I wish to stick to C and learn how it would be done in a procedural language as opposed to OOP.
To give an example
typedef struct tag tag;
typedef struct my_custom_struct my_custom_struct;
struct tag
{
// ...
};
struct my_custom_struct
{
tag *tags;
my_custom_struct* (*add_tag)(my_custom_struct* str, tag *tag);
};
my_custom_struct* add_tag(my_custom_struct* str, tag *tag)
{
// ...
}
where add_tag is a helper that manages to add the tag to tag list inside *str.
I saw this pattern in libjson-c like here- http://json-c.github.io/json-c/json-c-0.13.1/doc/html/structarray__list.html. There is a function pointer given inside array_list to help free it.
To make common operations on these struct instances easier for library
consumers, can I provide function pointers to such functions inside
the struct itself?
It is possible to endow your structures with members that are function pointers, pointing to function types whose parameters include pointers to your structure type, and that are intended to be used more or less like C++ instance methods, more or less as presented in the question.
Is it a good practice?
TL;DR: no.
The first problem you will run into is getting those pointer members initialized appropriately. Name correspondence notwithstanding, the function pointers in instances of your structure will not automatically be initialized to point to a particular function. Unless you make the structure type opaque, users can (and undoubtedly sometimes will) declare instances without calling whatever constructor-analog function you provide for the purpose, and then chaos will ensue.
If you do make the structure opaque (which after all isn't a bad idea), then you'll need non-member functions anyway, because your users won't be able to access the function pointers directly. Perhaps something like this:
struct my_custom_struct *my_add_tag(struct my_custom_struct *str, tag *tag) {
return str->add_tag(str, tag);
}
But if you're going to provide for that, then what's the point of the extra level of indirection? (Answer: the only good reason for that would be that in different instances, the function pointer can point to different functions.)
And similar applies if you don't make the structure opaque. Then you might suppose that users would (more) directly call
str->add_tag(str, tag);
but what exactly makes that a convenience with respect to simply
add_tag(str, tag);
?
So overall, no, I would not consider this approach a good practice in general. There are limited circumstances where it may make sense to do something along these lines, but not as a general library convention.
Would there be issues with
respect to multithreading where a utility function is called in
parallel with different arguments and so on?
Not more so than with functions designated any other way, except if the function pointers themselves are being modified.
I know it goes a lot closer to C++ classes but I wish to stick to C
and learn how it would be done in a procedural language as opposed to
OOP.
If you want to learn C idioms and conventions then by all means do so. What you are describing is not one. C code and libraries can absolutely be designed with use of OO principles such as encapsulation, and to some extent even polymorphism, but it is not conventionally achieved via the mechanism you describe. This answer touches on some of the approaches that are used for the purpose.
Is it a good practice?
TLDR; no.
Background:
I've been programming almost exclusively in embedded C on STM32 microcontrollers for the last year and a half (as opposed to using C++ or "C+", as I'll describe below). It's been very insightful for me to have to learn C at the architectural level, like I have. I've studied C architecture pretty hard to get to where I can say I "know C". It turns out, as we all know, C and C++ are NOT the same language. At the syntax level, C is almost exactly a subset of C++ (with some key differences where C supports stuff C++ does not), hence why people (myself included before this) frequently think/thought they are pretty much the same language, but at the architectural level they are VASTLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS.
Aside:
Note that my favorite approach to embedded is to use what some colloquially know as "C+". It is basically using a C++ compiler to write C-style embedded code. You basically just write C how you'd expect to write C, except you use C++ classes to vastly simplify the (otherwise pure C) architecture. In other words, "C+" is a pseudonym used to describe using a C++ compiler to write C-like code that uses classes instead of "object-based C" architecture (which is described below). You may also use some advanced C++ concepts on occasion, like operator overloading or templates, but avoid the STL for the most part to not accidentally use dynamic allocation (behind-the-scenes and automatically, like C++ vectors do, for example) after initialization, since dynamic memory allocation/deallocation in normal run-time can quickly use up scarce RAM resources and make otherwise-deterministic code non-deterministic. So-called "C+" may also include using a mix of C (compiled with the C compiler) and C++ (compiled with the C++ compiler), linked together as required (don't forget your extern "C" usage in C header files included in your C++ code, as required).
The core Arduino source code (again, the core, not necessarily their example "sketches" or example code for beginners) does this really well, and can be used as a model of good "C+" design. <== before you attack me on this, go study the Arduino source code for dozen of hours like I have [again, NOT the example "sketches", but their actual source code, linked-to below], and drop your "arduino is for beginners" pride right now.
The AVR core (mix of C and "C+"-style C++) is here: https://github.com/arduino/ArduinoCore-avr/tree/master/cores/arduino
Some of the core libraries ("C+"-style C++) are here: https://github.com/arduino/ArduinoCore-avr/tree/master/libraries
[aside over]
Architectural C notes:
So, regarding C architecture (ie: actual C, NOT "C+"/C-style C++):
C is not an OO language, as you know, but it can be written in an "object-based" style. Notice I say "object-based", NOT "object oriented", as that's how I've heard other pedantic C programmers refer to it. I can say I write object-based C architecture, and it's actually quite interesting.
To make object-based C architecture, here's a few things to remember:
Namespaces can be done in C simply by prepending your namespace name and an underscore in front of something. That's all a namespace really is after-all. Ex: mylibraryname_foo(), mylibraryname_bar(), etc. Apply this to enums, for example, since C doesn't have "enum classes" like C++. Apply it to all C class "methods" too since C doesn't have classes. Apply to all global variables or defines as well that pertain to a particular library.
When making C "classes", you have 2 major architectural options, both of which are very valid and widely used:
Use public structs (possibly hidden in headers named "myheader_private.h" to give them a pseudo-sense of privacy)
Use opaque structs (frequently called "opaque pointers" since they are pointers to opaque structs)
When making C "classes", you have the option of wrapping up pointers to functions inside of your structs above to give it a more "C++" type feel. This is somewhat common, but in my opinion a horrible idea which makes the code nearly impossible to follow and very difficult to read, understand, and maintain.
1st option, public structs:
Make a header file with a struct definition which contains all your "class data". I recommend you do NOT include pointers to functions (will discuss later). This essentially gives you the equivalent of a "C++ class where all members are public." The downside is you don't get data hiding. The upside is you can use static memory allocation of all of your C "class objects" since your user code which includes these library headers knows the full specification and size of the struct.
2nd option: opaque structs:
In your library header file, make a forward declaration to a struct:
/// Opaque pointer (handle) to C-style "object" of "class" type mylibrarymodule:
typedef struct mylibrarymodule_s *mylibrarymodule_h;
In your library .c source file, provide the full definition of the struct mylibrarymodule_s. Since users of this library include only the header file, they do NOT get to see the full implementation or size of this opaque struct. That is what "opaque" means: "hidden". It is obfuscated, or hidden away. This essentially gives you the equivalent of a "C++ class where all members are private." The upside is you get true data hiding. The downside is you can NOT use static memory allocation for any of your C "class objects" in your user code using this library, since any user code including this library doesn't even know how big the struct is, so it cannot be statically allocated. Instead, the library must do dynamic memory allocation at program initialization, one time, which is safe even for embedded deterministic real-time safety-critical systems since you are not allocating or freeing memory during normal program execution.
For a detailed and full example of Option 2 (don't be confused: I call it "Option 1.5" in my answer linked-to here) see my other answer on opaque structs/pointers here: Opaque C structs: how should they be declared?.
Personally, I think the Option 1, with static memory allocation and "all public members", may be my preferred approach, but I am most familiar with the opaque struct Option 2 approach, since that's what the C code base I work in the most uses.
Bullet 3 above: including pointers to functions in your structs.
This can be done, and some do it, but I really hate it. Don't do it. It just makes your code so stinking hard to follow. In Eclipse, for instance, which has an excellent indexer, I can Ctrl + click on anything and it will jump to its definition. What if I want to see the implementation of a function I'm calling on a C "object"? I Ctrl + click it and it jumps to the declaration of the pointer to the function. But where's the function??? I don't know! It might take me 10 minutes of grepping and using find or search tools, digging all around the code base, to find the stinking function definition. Once I find it, I forget where I was, and I have to repeat it all over again for every single function, every single time I edit a library module using this approach. It's just bad. The opaque pointer approach above works fantastic instead, and the public pointer approach would be easy too.
Now, to directly answer your questions:
To make common operations on these struct instances easier for library consumers, can I provide function pointers to such functions inside the struct itself?
Yes you can, but it only makes calling something easier. Don't do it. Finding the function to look at its implementation becomes really hard.
Is it a good practice?
No, use Option 1 or Option 2 above instead, where you now just have to call C "namespaced" "methods" on every C "object". You must simply pass the "members of the C class" into the function as the first argument for every call instead. This means instead of in C++ where you can do:
myclass.dosomething(int a, int b);
You'll just have to do in object-based C:
// Notice that you must pass the "guts", or member data
// (`mylibrarymodule` here), of each C "class" into the namespaced
// "methods" to operate on said C "class object"!
// - Essentially you're passing around the guts (member variables)
// of the C "class" (which guts are frequently referred to as
// "private data", or just `priv` in C lingo) to each function that
// needs to operate on a C object
mylibrarymodule_dosomething(mylibrarymodule_h mylibrarymodule, int a, int b);
Would there be issues with respect to multithreading where a utility function is called in parallel with different arguments and so on?
Yes, same as in any multithreaded situation where multiple threads are trying to access the same data. Just add a mutex to each C struct-based "object", and be sure each "method" acting on your C "objects" properly locks (takes) and unlocks (gives) the mutex as required before operating on any shared volatile members of the C "object".
Related:
Opaque C structs: how should they be declared? [use "Object-based" C architecture]
I would like to suggest you reading com specification, you will gain a lot. all these com, ole and dcom technology is based on a simple struct that incorporates its own data and methods.
https://www.scribd.com/document/45643943/Com-Spec
simplied more here
http://www.voidcn.com/article/p-fixbymia-beu.html
So I'm completely new to programming. I currently study computer science and have just read the first 200 pages of my programming book, but there's one thing I cannot seem to see the difference between and which havn't been clearly specified in the book and that's reserved words vs. standard identifiers - how can I see from code if it's one or the other.
I know the reserved words are some that cannot be changed, while the standard indentifiers can (though not recommended according to my book). The problem is while my book says reserved words are always in pure lowercase like,
(int, void, double, return)
it kinda seems to be the very same for standard indentifier like,
(printf, scanf)
so how do I know when it is what, or do I have to learn all the reserved words from the ANSI C, which is the current language we are trying to learn, (or whatever future language I might work with) to know when it is when?
First off, you'll have to learn the rules for each language you learn as it is one of the areas that varies between languages. There's no universal rule about what's what.
Second, in C, you need to know the list of keywords; that seems to be what you're referring to as 'reserved words'. Those are important; they're immutable; they can't be abused because the compiler won't let you. You can't use int as a variable name; it is always a type.
Third, the C preprocessor can be abused to hijack anything; if you compile with #define double int in effect, you get what you deserve, but there's nothing much to stop you doing that.
Fourth, the only predefined variable name is __func__, the name of the current function.
Fifth, names such as printf() are defined by the standard library, but the standard library has to be implemented by someone using a C compiler; ask the maintainers of the GNU C library. For a discussion of many of the ideas behind the treaty between the standard and the compiler writers, and between the compiler writers and the programmers using a compiler, see the excellent book The Standard C Library by P J Plauger from 1992. Yes, it is old and the modern standard C library is somewhat bigger than the one from C90, but the background information is still valid and very helpful.
Reserved words are part of the language's syntax. C without int is not C, but something else. They are built into the language and are not and cannot be defined anywhere in terms of this particular language.
For example, if is a reserved keyword. You can't redefine it and even if you could, how would you do this in terms of the C language? You could do that in assembly, though.
The standard library functions you're talking about are ordinary functions that have been included into the standard library, nothing more. They are defined in terms of the language's syntax. Also, you can redefine these functions, although it's not advised to do so as this may lead to all sorts of bugs and unexpected behavior. Yet it's perfectly valid to write:
int puts(const char *msg) {
printf("This has been monkey-patched!\n");
return -1;
}
You'd get a warning that'd complain about the redefinition of a standard library function, but this code is valid anyway.
Now, imagine reimplementing return:
unknown_type return(unknown_type stuff) {
// what to do here???
}
everyone. I actually have two questions, somewhat related.
Question #1: Why is gcc letting me declare variables after action statements? I thought the C89 standard did not allow this. (GCC Version: 4.4.3) It even happens when I explicitly use --std=c89 on the compile line. I know that most compilers implement things that are non-standard, i.e. C compilers allowing // comments, when the standard does not specify that. I'd like to learn just the standard, so that if I ever need to use just the standard, I don't snag on things like this.
Question #2: How do you cope without objects in C? I program as a hobby, and I have not yet used a language that does not have Objects (a.k.a. OO concepts?) -- I already know some C++, and I'd like to learn how to use C on it's own. Supposedly, one way is to make a POD struct and make functions similar to StructName_constructor(), StructName_doSomething(), etc. and pass the struct instance to each function - is this the 'proper' way, or am I totally off?
EDIT: Due to some minor confusion, I am defining what my second question is more clearly: I am not asking How do I use Objects in C? I am asking How do you manage without objects in C?, a.k.a. how do you accomplish things without objects, where you'd normally use objects?
In advance, thanks a lot. I've never used a language without OOP! :)
EDIT: As per request, here is an example of the variable declaration issue:
/* includes, or whatever */
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int myInt = 5;
printf("myInt is %d\n", myInt);
int test = 4; /* This does not result in a compile error */
printf("Test is %d\n", test);
return 0;
}
c89 doesn't allow this, but c99 does. Although it's taken a long time to catch on, some compilers (including gcc) are finally starting to implement c99 features.
IMO, if you want to use OOP, you should probably stick to C++ or try out Objective C. Trying to reinvent OOP built on top of C again just doesn't make much sense.
If you insist on doing it anyway, yes, you can pass a pointer to a struct as an imitation of this -- but it's still not a good idea.
It does often make sense to pass (pointers to) structs around when you need to operate on a data structure. I would not, however, advise working very hard at grouping functions together and having them all take a pointer to a struct as their first parameter, just because that's how other languages happen to implement things.
If you happen to have a number of functions that all operate on/with a particular struct, and it really makes sense for them to all receive a pointer to that struct as their first parameter, that's great -- but don't feel obliged to force it just because C++ happens to do things that way.
Edit: As far as how you manage without objects: well, at least when I'm writing C, I tend to operate on individual characters more often. For what it's worth, in C++ I typically end up with a few relatively long lines of code; in C, I tend toward a lot of short lines instead.
There is more separation between the code and data, but to some extent they're still coupled anyway -- a binary tree (for example) still needs code to insert nodes, delete nodes, walk the tree, etc. Likewise, the code for those operations needs to know about the layout of the structure, and the names given to the pointers and such.
Personally, I tend more toward using a common naming convention in my C code, so (for a few examples) the pointers to subtrees in a binary tree are always just named left and right. If I use a linked list (rare) the pointer to the next node is always named next (and if it's doubly-linked, the other is prev). This helps a lot with being able to write code without having to spend a lot of time looking up a structure definition to figure out what name I used for something this time.
#Question #1: I don't know why there is no error, but you are right, variables have to be declared at the beginning of a block. Good thing is you can declare blocks anywhere you like :). E.g:
{
int some_local_var;
}
#Question #2: actually programming C without inheritance is sometimes quite annoying. but there are possibilities to have OOP to some degree. For example, look at the GTK source code and you will find some examples.
You are right, functions like the ones you have shown are common, but the constructor is commonly devided into an allocation function and an initialization function. E.G:
someStruct* someStruct_alloc() { return (someStruct*)malloc(sizeof(someStruct)); }
void someStruct_init(someStruct* this, int arg1, arg2) {...}
In some libraries, I have even seen some sort of polymorphism, where function pointers are stored within the struct (which have to be set in the initializing function, of course). This results in a C++ like API:
someStruct* str = someStruct_alloc();
someStruct_init(str);
str->someFunc(10, 20, 30);
Regarding OOP in C, have you looked at some of the topics on SO? For instance, Can you write object oriented code in C?.
I can't put my finger on an example, but I think they enforce an OO like discipline in Linux kernel programming as well.
In terms of learning how C works, as opposed to OO in C++, you might find it easier to take a short course in some other language that doesn't have an OO derivative -- say, Modula-2 (one of my favorites) or even BASIC (if you can still find a real BASIC implementation -- last time I wrote BASIC code it was with the QBASIC that came with DOS 5.0, later compiled in full Quick BASIC).
The methods you use to get things done in Modula-2 or Pascal (barring the strong typing, which protects against certain types of errors but makes it more complicated to do certain things) are exactly those used in non-OO C, and working in a language with different syntax might (probably will, IMO) make it easier to learn the concepts without your "programming reflexes" kicking in and trying to do OO operations in a nearly-familiar language.
In C if I declare a struct/union/enum:
struct Foo { int i ... }
when I want to use my structure I need to specify the tag:
struct Foo foo;
To loose this requirement, I have to alias my structure using typedef:
typedef struct Foo Foo;
Why not have all types/structs/whatever in the same "namespace" by default? What is the rationale behind the decision of requiring the declaration tag at each variable declaration (unless typdefe'd) ???
Many other languages do not make this distinction, and it seems that it's only bringing an extra level of complexity IMHO.
Structures/records were a very early pre-C addition to B, just after Dennis Ritchie added a the basic 'typed' structure. I believe that the original struct syntax did not have a tag at all, for every variable you made an anonymous struct:
struct {
int i;
char a[5];
} s;
Later, the tag was added to enable reuse of structure layout, but it wasn't really regarded as real 'type'. Also, removing the struct/union would make parsing impossible:
/* is Foo a union or a struct? */
Foo { int i; double x; };
Foo s;
or break the 'declaration syntax mimics expression syntax' paradigm that is so fundamental to C.
I suspect that typedef was added much later, possible a few years after the 'birth' of C.
The argument "C was the highest level language at the time." does not seem true. Algol-68 predates it and has records as proper types. The same holds for Pascal.
If you like to know more about the history of C you might find Ritchie's "The Development of the C Language" an interesting read.
Well, other languages also usually support namespaces. C doesn't.
It probably isn't the reason, but it makes sense to have at least this natural namespace.
Interesting question! Here are my thoughts.
When C was created, little abstraction existed over assembly language. There was FORTRAN, B, and others, but when C came to be it was arguably the highest level language in existence. It's goal was to provide functionality and syntax powerful enough to create and maintain an operating system, and it succeed remarkably.
Think that, at the time, porting a system to a new platform meant rewriting and adapting components to the platform's assembly language. With the release of C, it eventually came down to porting the C compiler, and recompiling existent code.
It was probably an asset back then that the very syntax of the language forced you to differentiate between types that could fit in a register, and types that couldn't.
Language syntax has evolved a lot since then, and most of the things we're used to see in modern languages are missing in C. User-defined namespaces is only one of them, and I don't think the concept of "syntax sugar" even existed back then. Or rather, C was the peak of syntax sugar.
We're surrounded with things like this. I mean, take a look at your keyboard: why do we ave a PAUSE/BREAK key? I don't think I've pressed that key for years.
It's inheritance from a time in which it made sense.