Which version of C is more appropriate for students to learn- C89/90 or C99?

Question

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?

Answer 1

There is no reason to learn C89 or C90 over C99- it's been very literally superseded.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.

Answer 2

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 :)

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

If you are at student level you probably won't even notice the differences.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

As a student, that doesn't influence you so much. But if possible, you should find a new C book which covers C99

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

The term "C89" describes two very different languages:

1. 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.

2. 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.