>>106515866
I just need a furry wife.

>>106515866
>no generics or collections in standard library
>no namespaces
>no modules
>no method syntax
kys fag lmao

>>106516174
Never needed any of these.

>>106515866
Not watching all that.
C is has it's place for writing portable libraries that can be used from modern languages.
Beyond that, IDK why you would want to use it.

Headers and guards, dllexport/dllimport, typedef, long long int vs int64_t vs LARGE_INTEGER, null-termination, a bazillion build systems...
People act like C is a simple language when it has so much bloat and terrible defaults.
Is stuff like algebraic data types and generics really so scary in comparison?

>>106515866
All I need is a fox gf.

>>106516997
>Beyond that, IDK why you would want to use it.
main reasons that guy uses it is unparalleled portability and
immortalized software. he’s autistic and uses a subset of ansi c

>>106516997
>typedef, long long int vs int64_t
>bloat
bait and 0 iq if the others didn't make it obvious enough already

also not watching a 3 hour video since i already know C is all you need

>>106517259
>main reasons that guy uses it is unparalleled portability
makes sense
>and immortalized software
lol
>he’s autistic and uses a subset of ansi c
makes sense

>>106517272
>bait and 0 iq if the others didn't make it obvious enough already
Having to wrap structs in a typedef because C doesn't have modules/namespaces is bloat.
Writing out "long long" to get an integer that is guaranteed to be "at least" 64 bits is stupid.
stdint.h only exists because whoever created the language made a mistake; "long long" is legacy bloat.
Also, don't ignore the rest. Only midwits who have too much time think shit like header guards, API macros for switching between dllexport/dllimport, and the number of build systems are worth messing with when good languages have module systems, accessibility modifiers, and dedicated build systems.