See, the thing is, I *like* ANSI C/C99.
Specced in 1988. Minor update in 2000 - ooh 64bit!
After C90, C is really ANSI + ISO C, with the specification initially published by ISO, as ISO 9899. At least for C94 and C99, there were both ANSI and ISO working groups (I don't offhand remember if this was still true for C11) - INCITS J11 and SC22 WG14, respectively - so calling it "ANSI C" is inaccurate.
It was updated in 1994,1 1999, and 2011. The '94 update was minor; I wouldn't call C99 a minor update, though it went to considerable length to avoid breaking backward compatibility, so many people didn't notice. But if you read through, say, the C99 Rationale, you'll see that the changes are substantial and the deliberations behind them even more so. Many new types. The restrict type-qualifier. Unicode character escapes. Declarations can appear anywhere in a block. The __func__ predefined identifier. Compound literals and designated initializers. Tighter rules for declarations. Variadic macros. A bunch of subtle changes regarding blocks and scopes. And so on.
WHat the fuck do I get with .net?Well, for one, we are at major version3, after just 10 years of exitense.
Major version 3 of .NET Core. The .NET Framework is at 4.7. CLR is at version 4. Your argument might be a bit more persuasive had you taken a minute to learn something about your subject.
Someone else might point out that different problem domains might be best addressed with different tools, but I have a feeling in your case that observation would fall on deaf ears.
1Or 1995, depending on whom you ask. This version of C is often called "C94", but the C99 Rationale calls it "C95". And it actually wasn't a single update - there were two Technical Corrigenda and an Amendment. They were bundled up with C90 into the C94 / C95 standard.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
