Well they could have added in C99 or more recently in C11. What's wrong about updating a language?

> In the mean time, how does that in any way make C not capable for the same tasks as C++?

I would rather prefer not reinventing the wheel and a language that actually ship with it.

> Then you don't know C. The entire point of C is that it is simple.

I know C fairly well to recognize it quirks (just like all languages have). I think your definition of simple is very different of mine. Scheme is simple, InteractiveC is simple, C it is not.

> That has nothing to do with simplicity, and C++ has far more complex syntax.

cumbersome(adj): difficult because of extent or complexity

simple(adj): 1.easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty. antonyms: complex

How come something cumbersome has nothing to do with simplicity?

Also I am not saying that C++ is simple. But it has a subset that it is well defined, type safe and easy to understand.

> C is very simple and straight forward to debug. C++ is much more difficult to debug. Have you ever used either language?

Yes, I have used both in my formal job, and I can avoid memory leaks and memory corruption easily on C++. Not the case on C, specially when working in medium size teams where always people forget what they should cast a void* into and why they should not.

>>and C code is very prone to contain memory corruption bugs and leaks.

>Because it is so simple.

Seriously? It is a feature now? Well Scheme is a good example of language that is order of magnitudes simpler than C and it is not prone to memory leaks nor memory corruptions

>"Well your opinion is in the vast minority, and does not seem to have any basis in reality. The C spec is a tiny fraction of the size of the C++ spec."

If by simple you mean simpler than C++, yeah. You could say the same of Perl. Does is it make Perl a simple language?

Nothing, they do update the language. But fundamentally changing the language to be completely different is not the same as adding some small thing. C is simple on purpose. Adding complexity is not just an update, it is making it no longer suitable for its intended goal. So they choose not to.

>I would rather prefer not reinventing the wheel and a language that actually ship with it.

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, use a library like you already said.

>I think your definition of simple is very different of mine

Clearly. But mine is the same as 90% of the people who have commented on the subject. People overwhelmingly describe C as simple.

>Scheme is simple

Yes it is. As is C.

>How come something cumbersome has nothing to do with simplicity?

You just quoted how. Are you joking?

>Also I am not saying that C++ is simple

But you are arguing that C is complex and thus not appropriate, while C++ is appropriate. You can't have it both ways.

>Yes, I have used both in my formal job, and I can avoid memory leaks and memory corruption easily on C++

Which has what to do with debugging? And why are you incapable of avoiding those problems easily with C when everyone else does it just fine?

>Not the case on C, specially when working in medium size teams where always people forget what they should cast a void* into and why they should not.

Yes, clearly there's no way groups of people could work together on large complex software in C. I'll go tell linux, apache, X, all 4 BSDs, nginx, postgresql, postfix, etc, etc, etc that they don't exist. I'm sure they'll be glad to know.

>Well Scheme is a good example of language that is order of magnitudes simpler than C and it is not prone to memory leaks nor memory corruptions

Scheme is not even one order of magnitude simpler than C. Go read the specs. And scheme is not prone to memory leaks and "corruption" because it is higher level. This also makes it much slower. Even more importantly, it makes it a ridiculous comparison.

>If by simple you mean simpler than C++, yeah.

You are the one advocating C++ over C while claiming C is too complex. What are you blaming me for?