I still write nearly ANSI compliant C for simple embedded things. Because somebody might need to figure out how to rebuild it in twenty years, and making that person's life harder for some syntactic sugar isn't worth it.
Even C99 can be a problem: for example, C99 designated initializers are not supported in C++. If your header needs to support C++ you can't use them (C++ forces you to initialize every field in the structure in order if you do it that way).
They are, finally, part of C++20.
I would argue they go far beyond linters now, which was perhaps not true even nine months ago.
To the degree you consider this to be evidence, in the last 7 days, the authors of a PR has replied to a Greptile comment with "great catch", "good catch", etc. 9,078 times.
Are they getting kickbacks? That would be straight up illegal, but it would make the most sense.
After knowing I've had sleep apnea for the past 10 years, I actually want the damn machine... I'm sick of having to sleep 3-4 times a day and still feeling like trash.
> we found that there are 17 semantic rules in the core semantics which are not covered by the [ECMAScript Conformance Test Suite]
> we succeeded to manually write test programs that hit 11 out of 17 behaviors
> the remaining 6 semantic behaviors are infeasible, that is, they represent flaws in the language standard itself
[0] https://github.com/kframework/javascript-semantics/blob/mast...