Nearly every (relatively) new book about c programming I've seen doesn't seem to adhere to the C99 standard, or they cover it in an extra chapter. Comming from a Java background, the C99 standard made the migration (well, still migrating ^^) much easier for me, and this probably applies to other languages, too.
It seems like C99 hasn't reached most of the C developers yet. But why?
Short answer: compiler support is slow to get installed and c programmers are a conservative lot who change their behavior slowly.
I strongly suspect it's mainly because MSVC does not attempt to support C99, and quite likely never will. There are a few embedded compilers in the same boat, but they're hardly common enough to matter much individually. AFAIK everyone else is at least trying to implement C99 as much as possible.
There isn't much reason in practice not to use selected features of C99, but if you're going to learn and write to one C standard, and only one, then it must be C89.
Furthermore, it's probably quite difficult and confusing to write an introductory C text which starts out by saying "OK, there are two different standards, and I'm going to use three different colours of text: one for C89, one for C99, and one for both". It's also probably harder to write about C99 for a whole book, and then "take back" a lot of what you've said in an appendix about C89, than it is to write about C89 and then add to it in an appendix about C99.
All speculation, though. Really you'd have to ask the authors of the books you're reading (or perhaps in some cases go against all your programming instincts, and read the foreword ;-))
The risk of switching to a new compiler on an existing code base is generally unknown, but it can be quite painful, its wisest to only switch when you have months of time to shake out any bugs/changes. And for really old code bases, sometimes It's wisest to just never switch at all.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of projects that use C aren't willing to switch to C99 at all since there's hardly any upside for a large existing code base and quite a bit of potential downside. I worked at one large software house that checked the compilers into th source tree right along side the code and would never switch compilers for a product.
Related
Why did the original C language not support initial declarations in for loop initializations?
Obviously the original creators, and then the pre-C99 standardizations, didn't specify it that way. But I can't seem to find any rationale for why that design choice was made.
The closest thing to an answer I seem to find is this answer explaining how mixing declarations and code was prohibited in order to allow for compilers to be single-pass back when that was important. At first glance it makes sense that declarations in a for loop statement would have the same/similar problems as declarations mixed with code.
But, pre-C99 C did support declarations at the start of blocks:
{
unsigned int i;
for(i = 0; i < WHATEVER; i += 1)
{
/* ... */
}
}
I don't personally see how the compiler logic for that is substantially different than for this:
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < WHATEVER; i += 1)
{
/* ... */
}
Seems to me that if a compiler can do the former single-pass, it could also do the latter. It might require that a for statement always create a scope block (even if followed by just one statement and not a { ... } block of statements), but I can't think of a way for such semantics to break any other pre-C99 C code (either the for statement is followed by a block in which case it's already "scoped", or it's followed by a single statement, in which case a new declaration wouldn't have been allowed in that single statement anyway).
So, why was this syntax "feature" initially omitted? Am I wrong in thinking that it would've been trivial to support without violating performance goals of the time? Did known language parser/compiler techniques at the time make it seem harder? Did it just get omitted because of minimalist design/mentality, since functionally it was possible to do the same thing (block around for loop)? Or was there an explicit language design reason against it (e.g. how Go initially excluded exceptions because the designers thought that made for a better language)?
Where I've looked
I've tried finding an answer to this here and through general web-search-fu, with no luck: all search terms I thought of seem to be saturated with confused questions about C for loop initial declarations, the "used outside of C99 mode" error message, etc. (Except the search term "rationale", which guided me to useful information, but nothing that answered this specifically).
I searched over this article by Dennis Ritchie himself on developing the language, and didn't spot anything.
I searched through my copy of The C Programming Language (2nd Edition), first reading the actual for loop explaining section, then checking the index for other mentions of the "for"/"for loop". I've read over a couple of other places I thought might mention it, but found nothing.
I don't believe there was any specific decision to exclude such features, nor rationale mounted to do so.
As romantic as it may seem to believe the designers (Kernighan, Ritchie, etc) thought of all the possibilities, and excluded features only after deep and meaningful consideration, the reality is that the early years of designing C (like quite a few other programming languages) followed a much more humble philosophy something like "Start small, don't sweat about adding features unless programmers are being PREVENTED from doing something".
Features like variable initialisation in for loops are programmer convenience - their absence didn't stop things being done. So, even if there was someone begging or campaigning for such a feature (which there probably wasn't), it probably went down in the priority order.
As to how things evolved .....
Before 1999, variable declarations were at the start of blocks in C (code commenced with { and ending at the closing }), not within other statements. This is the way things originally worked in pre-standard (K&R) C, and preceding languages like B (which was actually a cut-down derivative of preceding languages).
Variable declaration/initialisation within a for loop was introduced first into C++. It appeared pretty early on (e.g. Section 19 in the ARM), and was eventually introduced in the first C++ standard that was ratified in late 1998.
There was some discussion in the C standard committee, during the process of drafting the C++ standard (which took a decade) about adopting some features of C++ into C. That discussion was often mostly along the lines of "would anything else in C break if we added this?". A number of compiler vendors had already implemented several such features into their C compilers as optional extensions (or their C compilers were actually C++ compilers, with settings to disable C++ features incompatible with C), so discussion about adding those features was pretty brief. Therefore, those features easily added to C from C++ appeared in the 1999 C standard. Variable declaration/initialisation within a for loop was one of those features.
From that history, there is no evidence of any particular decision or rationale to exclude such features from early C - in short, it probably simply wasn't thought of.
The new C++11 standard supports lambda functions, which I think is a useful feature. I understand that the C and C++ standards differ from each other but I don't understand why C11 doesn't support lambda functions. I think it could have a lot of use.
Is there a reason why the developers of the C11 standard choose not to include this feature?
2021 update: lambdas based on C++ syntax with minimalist semantics were voted into C23 this year. More details will emerge as the committee pins down precisely what else the feature will bring in from C++ and other implementations.
2016 update: Apple-style lambdas with closures were once again presented to the Working Group at the London 2016 meeting, in a new proposal document that tries to address several of the failings of the previous attempt, tidying up the terminology and explanations and going into much more detail on how closures and lambdas can be made "C-like".
Since the reception was cautiously positive (7-0-9 Yes/No/Abstain), it's looking very possible that something similar to this will make it into the language soon.
The short answer is simply that C doesn't include lambda functions because nobody has yet made an acceptable proposal to the ISO C working group to include lambda functions.
You can take a look at a list of some of the proposals discussed by the working group here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/documents
The only proposal for lambdas of any kind that I can find in that list are Apple's blocks (as demonstrated in Yu Hao's answer), in document N1451. That proposal is discussed further in N1483, which compares it to C++ lambdas, and N1493 and N1542 which are the minutes of the meetings where those documents were presented.
There were several reasons why the proposal in N1451 couldn't be accepted, given in N1542:
initially the committee had difficulty understanding the proposal
it uses incorrect citations and terminology which contradicts the existing C standard
it is apparently vague and incomplete
Apple was in the process of trying to patent the feature (not clear if this is an obstacle to standardisation or not but I would assume so)
A completely new feature with completely new semantics proposed in 2010 had precisely zero chance of being ready in time for 2011, and would have held up the release of C11
Blocks as presented are not compatible with C++11 lambdas
It also looks like they were unconvinced that it was currently demonstrating enough utility. C standardisation apparently tries to be very conservative, and with only one major compiler implementing the feature it's likely that they would want to wait and see how it competes with C++ lambdas, and whether anybody else picks it up. It's not really a "C" feature as opposed to a "Clang" feature until multiple compilers are offering it.
All that said, the committee's votes did apparently lean very slightly in favour of the feature (6-5-4 Yes/No/Abstain), but not enough for the necessary consensus to include it.
As far as I can tell, the other big one, C++11 lambdas, have not been proposed for inclusion into C by anybody; and if you don't ask you don't get.
Any proposal for lambdas in C would add a whole slew of new rules about variable lifetimes and locations and copying and allocation and... etc. For a lot of people this potentially starts to look very un-C-like, with values getting moved around behind the programmer's back or having sudden unexpected changes in their lifespan - avoiding this sort of thing is half the reason people choose to write in C nowadays. So there also has to be a proposal that actually falls in line with C's "philosophy" before it can be taken seriously. I'm sure this can be done, but both of the big proposals so far have been designed for languages with a very different "philosophy" where this sort of thing is less of an obstacle, and don't necessarily reflect C's purpose and character as they currently stand.
C is intended to be a small and simple language. It deliberately omits high-level features when the same things can be done by simpler means. It aims to provide only the basic features that are absolutely necessary for portable programming.
C doesn't have references because they are just pointers. C doesn't have classes, inheritance and virtual functions, because you can just use structs and make vtables yourself using function pointers. It doesn't have a garbage collector because programmers can keep track of memory allocations themselves, it doesn't have templates because they are in fact just macros. If you need exceptions you can use longjmp, and instead of namespaces you simply add prefixes to names.
Adding any of these high-level shortcuts might make programming a little more comfortable, but this comes at the cost of making the language more complicated, which must not be underestimated. It is a slippery slope that directly leads to the mess that C++ has become.
C doesn't have lambda functions because they are not really necessary. Instead you can just use a static function and put the context in a struct.
This is really just my opinion, since I don't know what the committee thinks.
On the one hand, Lisp has been supporting lambda expression since its birth, which is in 1958. The C programming language was born in 1972. So lambda expression actually has a longer history than C. So if you ask why C11 doesn't support lambda expression, the same question can be asked about C89.
On the other hand, lambda expression is always a functional programming thing, and is absorbed to imperative programming languages gradually. Some of the "higher" language (e.g, Java, before the planned Java 8) doesn't support it yet.
Finally, C and C++ are always learning from each other, so maybe it will be in the next C standard. For now, you can take a look at Blocks, a non-standard extension added by Apple. This is an example code from Wikipedia:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <Block.h>
typedef int (^IntBlock)();
IntBlock MakeCounter(int start, int increment) {
__block int i = start;
return Block_copy( ^ {
int ret = i;
i += increment;
return ret;
});
}
int main(void) {
IntBlock mycounter = MakeCounter(5, 2);
printf("First call: %d\n", mycounter());
printf("Second call: %d\n", mycounter());
printf("Third call: %d\n", mycounter());
/* because it was copied, it must also be released */
Block_release(mycounter);
return 0;
}
/* Output:
First call: 5
Second call: 7
Third call: 9
*/
It's 2012. I'm writing some code in C. Should I be still be using C89? Are there still compilers that do not support C99?
I don't mind using /* */ instead of //.
I'm not sure about C89 forbids mixing declarations and code. I'm kind of leaning towards the idea that it's actually more readable to have all the declarations in one place, and if it isn't, the function is too long.
VLAs look useful but I haven't needed them yet.
Should I stick with C89 if I don't have a compelling reason not to? Are there other things I haven't considered?
Unless you know that you cannot use a C99-compatible compiler (the Visual Studio C compiler is the most prominent candidate) there is no good reason for not using the nice things C99 gives you.
However, even if you need to support that compiler you can use some C99 features - just not all of them.
One feature of C99 that is incredibly handy is being able to do for(int i = ...) instead of having to declare your loop variable on top of the function - especially since C actually has a block scope. That's the kind of declaration where having it on top really doesn't improve the readability.
There is a reason (or many) why C89 was superseded by C99. If you know for sure that no C99 compiler is available for your particular piece of work (unlikely unless you are stuck with Visual Studio which never supported C officially anyway), then you need to stay with C89 but otherwise you should certainly put yourself in a position where you can benefit from the last 20+ years of improvement. There is nothing inherently slower about C99.
Perhaps you should even consider looking at the newest C11 standard. There has been some important fixes for dealing with Unicode that any C programmer could benefit from (other changes in the standard are absolutely minimal)...
Good code is a mixture of performance, scalability, readability, and maintainability.
In my opinion, C99 makes code easier to read and maintain. Very, very few compilers don't support C99, so I say go with it. Use the tools you have available, unless you are certain you will need to compile your project with a compiler that requires the earlier standard.
Check out these links to learn more about the advantages to C99:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/2/23/194544/139
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Design
Note that C99 also supports library functions such as snprintf, which are very useful, and have better floating point support. Also, I find macros to be extremely helpful, especially when working with math-intensive applications (like cryptographic algorithms)
I disagree with Paul R's "bottom line" comment. There are multiple cases where C89 is advantageous for portability.
Targeting embedded systems, which may or may not have compilers supporting C99:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.arch.embedded/WNvhw3T_9pI%5B1-25%5D
Targeting the TinyCC compiler, as might be required in a restricted environment where installing a gigantic toolchain is either impractical or not allowed. (TCC is no longer being developed, and Bellard's last statement as to ISOC99 support was that it was "heading towards" full compliance.)
Supporting dynamic compilation via libtcc (see above).
Targeting MSVC, as others have noted.
For source-compatibility with projects that may be required by their company to use the C89 standard. This is especially relevant if you're writing an open source library, and want to maximize its application in some industry.
As cegfault noted, some of the C99 features as listed on Wikipedia can be very useful, but none I would consider indispensable if your priority is portability, or any of the above reasons apply.
It appears Microsoft hasn't budged on C99 compliance. SimonRev from Beijer Electronics commented on a related MSDN thread in November 2016:
In broad strokes, the only parts of the C99 compiler that were
implemented are those parts that they needed to keep the C++ compiler
up to date.
Microsoft has done basically nothing to the C compiler since VC6, and
they haven't made much secret that C++ is their vision of the future
of native code, not C.
In conclusion, if you want portability for embedded or restricted systems, dynamic compilation, MSVC, or compatibility with proprietary source code, I would say C89 is advantageous.
I'm looking into learning C basics and syntax before beginning Systems Programming next month. When doing some reading, I came across the C89/99 standards. According to Wikipedia,
C99 introduced several new features,
including inline functions, several
new data types (including long long
int and a complex type to represent
complex numbers), variable-length
arrays, support for variadic macros
(macros of variable arity) and support
for one-line comments beginning with
//, as in BCPL or C++. Many of these
had already been implemented as
extensions in several C compilers.
C99 is for the most part backward
compatible with C90, but is stricter
in some ways; in particular, a
declaration that lacks a type
specifier no longer has int
implicitly assumed. A standard macro
STDC_VERSION is defined with value 199901L to indicate that C99 support
is available. GCC, Sun Studio and
other compilers now support many or
all of the new features of C99.
I borrowed a copy of K&R, 2nd Edition, and it uses the C89 standard. For a student, does the use of C89 invalidate some subjects covered in K&R, and if so, what should I look out for?
There is no reason to learn C89 or C90 over C99- it's been very literally superseded. It's easy to find C99 compilers and there's no reason whatsoever to learn an earlier standard.
This doesn't mean that your professor won't force C89 upon you. From the various questions posted here marked homework, I get the feeling that many, many C (and, unfortunately, C++) courses haven't moved on since C89.
From the perspective of a starting student, the chances are that you won't really notice the difference- there's plenty of C that's both C99 and C89/90 to be covered.
Use the C99 standard, it's newer and has more features. Particularly useful may be the bool type in <stdbool.h> and the int32_t etc. family of types; the latter prevents a lot of unportable code that relies on ints having a certain size. AFAIK, it doesn't invalidate K&R, though some example programs may be written in a slightly different style now.
Note that some compilers still don't support C99 properly. I believe that GCC still requires the use of a -std=c99 flag to enable it; many Unix/Linux systems have a c99 command that wraps GCC and enables C99.
The same goes for many university professors. I surprised mine by handing in a program that used bool in my freshman year. He'd never heard of that type in C :)
While I generally agree with the others, it is worth noting that K&R is such a good book that it might be worth learning C from it and then updating your knowledge as you read about the C99 standard.
If you are at student level you probably won't even notice the differences.
Yes, it's a bit odd that you can get a loud consensus that K&R is a great C book, and also a loud consensus that C99 is the correct/current/best version of C. The two positions are incompatible - even if K&R is the best book available to learn "C meaning C99", that just implies the rest are rubbish, or are also hopelessly outdated.
I would advise learning and using C99, but keeping an eye to C89 as you do so. If you use a compiler that has both C89 and C99 compliant modes, then you can write a few bits of C89 just to get an idea of the differences. Then if you ever need to write some code intended to be portable to places that C99 doesn't go, you'll know what to do. If you never have to write any such code, then you've wasted perhaps a day.
Writing C89 properly is actually surprisingly difficult, because getting hold of a copy of the C89 standard is difficult. So, C99 if you can, C89 if for some odd reason you have to, and have some awareness what the difference is. Maybe use K&R to cover the very basics, but get a look at some idiomatic C99 as soon as possible.
As for specific issues to be aware of when reading K&R: there's a list of major changes in the foreword of the standard (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf), although the details aren't laid out there. A lot of them are new features added to C99, so it's not that K&R is wrong, it just may not always use the best tools for a given job. Some of them are quite fiddly things where you should probably consult the standard if you need the details anyway. The rest are things removed from C89, that usually a C99 compiler will tell you about as and when you try to use them.
As a student, that doesn't influence you so much. But if possible, you should find a new C book which covers C99
The term "C89" describes two very different languages:
The language that programmers in 1989 thought the Committee was describing in places where the Standard was ambiguous, and which supported features that were common in pre-existing implementations.
The language that the Committee has since decided that it wanted to have described, which threw compatibility with existing functionality out the
window.
C99 "clarifies" ambiguous parts of the standard by saying that they meant
to have the Standard interpreted in a way that would have broken a substantial
fraction of existing code and made it impossible to perform many tasks as
efficiently as they had been performed in C before 1989.
The right language to program in, for many applications, would be the superset of pre-Standard C, C89, C99, and C11. It's important, however, that anyone programming in that language be clear that they're using that language rather than a shrinking subset which favors speed over reliability.
While I think it's beneficial to know which features are more recent and less likely to be supported by obscure (or intentionally-broken, like MSVC) compilers, there are a few C99 features that you should absolutely use:
snprintf: This is the definitive function for safe and clean string assembly in C. If your compiler is missing it, you can either replace the whole printf subsystem (probably a good idea since most implementations with missing snprintf are also full of (often intentional) bugs in printf behavior), or wrap tmpfile/fprintf/fread/fclose.
stdint.h: If you need fixed-size types (16/32/64-bit), use the standard names int16_t, uint16_t, int32_t, etc. Do not invent your own, and absolutely don't use system-specific ones like INT64 or u32. It just makes your code ugly and hard to integrate and reuse. If your compiler is missing stdint.h, just drop in your own to define the types in terms of the correct-for-your-platform types.
Specifically uint64_t, in place of int foo[2]; or struct { int lo, int hi; } foo; or other hideous legacy hacks to work with 64-bit numbers. Any sane compiler even without C99 support has its own 64-bit types you can use to define int64_t and uint64_t.
It seems that most new programming languages that have appeared in the last 20 years have been written in C. This makes complete sense as C can be seen as a sort of portable assembly language. But what I'm curious about is whether this has constrained the design of the languages in any way. What prompted my question was thinking about how the C stack is used directly in Python for calling functions. Obviously the programming language designer can do whatever they want in whatever language they want, but it seems to me that the language you choose to write your new language in puts you in a certain mindset and gives you certain shortcuts that are difficult to ignore. Are there other characteristics of these languages that come from being written in that language (good or bad)?
I tend to disagree.
I don't think it's so much that a language's compiler or interpreter is implemented in C — after all, you can implement a virtual machine with C that is completely unlike its host environment, meaning that you can get away from a C / near-assembly language mindset.
However, it's more difficult to claim that the C language itself didn't have any influence on the design of later languages. Take for example the usage of curly braces { } to group statements into blocks, the notion that whitespace and indentation is mostly unimportant, native type's names (int, char, etc.) and other keywords, or the way how variables are defined (ie. type declaration first, followed by the variable's name, optional initialization). Many of today's popular and wide-spread languages (C++, Java, C#, and I'm sure there are even more) share these concepts with C. (These probably weren't completely new with C, but AFAIK C came up with that particular mix of language syntax.)
Even with a C implementation, you're surprisingly free in terms of implementation. For example, chicken scheme uses C as an intermediate, but still manages to use the stack as a nursery generation in its garbage collector.
That said, there are some cases where there are constraints. Case in point: The GHC haskell compiler has a perl script called the Evil Mangler to alter the GCC-outputted assembly code to implement some important optimizations. They've been moving to internally-generated assembly and LLVM partially for that reason. That said, this hasn't constrained the language design - only the compiler's choice of available optimizations.
No, in short. The reality is, look around at the languages that are written in C. Lua, for example, is about as far from C as you can get without becoming Perl. It has first-class functions, fully automated memory management, etc.
It's unusual for new languages to be affected by their implementation language, unless said language contains serious limitations. While I definitely disapprove of C, it's not a limited language, just very error-prone and slow to program in compared to more modern languages. Oh, except in the CRT. For example, Lua doesn't contain directory functionality, because it's not part of the CRT so they can't portably implement it in standard C. That is one way in which C is limited. But in terms of language features, it's not limited.
If you wanted to construct an argument saying that languages implemented in C have XYZ limitations or characteristics, you would have to show that doing things another way is impossible in C.
The C stack is just the system stack, and this concept predates C by quite a bit. If you study theory of computing you will see that using a stack is very powerful.
Using C to implement languages has probably had very little effect on those languages, though the familiarity with C (and other C like languages) of people who design and implement languages has probably influenced their design a great deal. It is very difficult to not be influenced by things you've seen before even when you aren't actively copying the best bits of another language.
Many languages do use C as the glue between them and other things, though. Part of this is that many OSes provide a C API, so to access that it's easy to use C. Additionally, C is just so common and simple that many other languages have some sort of way to interface with it. If you want to glue two modules together which are written in different languages then using C as the middle man is probably the easiest solution.
Where implementing a language in C has probably influenced other languages the most is probably things like how escapes are done in strings, which probably isn't that limiting.
The only thing that has constrained language design is the imagination and technical skill of the language designers. As you said, C can be thought of as a "portable assembly language". If that is true, then asking if C has constrained a design is akin to asking if assembly has constrained language design. Since all code written in any language is eventually executed as assembly, every language would suffer the same constraints. Therefore, the C language itself imposes no constraints that would be overcome by using a different language.
That being said, there are some things that are easier to do in one language vs another. Many language designers take this into account. If the language is being designed to be, say, powerful at string processing but performance is not a concern, then using a language with better built-in string processing facilities (such as C++) might be more optimal.
Many developers choose C for several reasons. First, C is a very common language. Open source projects in particular like that it is relatively easier to find an experienced C-language developer than it is to find an equivalently-skilled developer in some other languages. Second, C typically lends itself to micro-optimization. When writing a parser for a scripted language, the efficiency of the parser has a big impact on the overall performance of scripts written in that language. For compiled languages, a more efficient compiler can reduce compile times. Many C compilers are very good at generating extremely optimized code (which is also part of the reason why many embedded systems are programmed in C), and performance-critical code can be written in inline assembly. Also, C is standardized and is generally a static target. Code can be written to the ANSI/C89 standard and not have to worry about it being incompatible with a future version of C. The revisions made in the C99 standard add functionality but don't break existing code. Finally, C is extremely portable. If at least one compiler exists for a given platform, it's most likely a C compiler. Using a highly-portable language like C makes it easier to maximize the number of platforms that can use the new language.
The one limitation that comes to mind is extensibility and compiler hosting. Consider the case of C#. The compiler is written in C/C++ and is entirely native code. This makes it very difficult to use in process with a C# application.
This has broad implications for the tooling chain of C#. Any code which wants to take advantage of the real C# parser or binding engine has to have at least one component which is written in native code. This eventually results in most of the tooling chain for the C# language being written in C++ which is a bit backwards for a language.
This doesn't limit the language per say but definitely has an effect on the experience around the language.
Garbage collection. Language implementations on top of Java or .NET use the VM's GC. Those on top of C tend to use reference counting.
One thing I can think of is that functions are not necessarily first class members in the language, and this is can't be blamed on C alone (I am not talking about passing a function pointer, though it can be argued that C provides you with that feature).
If one were to write a DSL in groovy (/scheme/lisp/haskell/lua/javascript/and some more that I am not sure of), functions can become first class members. Making functions first class members and allowing for anonymous functions allows to write concise and more human readable code (like demonstrated by LINQ).
Yes, eventually all of these are running under C (or assembly if you want to get to that level), but in terms of providing the user of the language the ability to express themselves better, these abstractions do a wonderful job.
Implementing a compiler/interpreter in C doesn't have any major limitations. On the other hand, implementing a language X to C compiler does. For example, according to the Wikipedia article on C--, when compiling a higher level language to C you can't do precise garbage collection, efficient exception handling, or tail recursion optimization. This is the kind of problem that C-- was intended to solve.