Yeah, that phrase "everything's an int" scares me (and I'm a C programmer---been programming in it since 1990). At one time I was playing around with Viola (http://www.viola.org/) (quite possibly the first graphical web browser). The code is a mess precisely because it grasps the "everything's an int" and doesn't let go. Once you get it to compile (and out of the box it doesn't any more) it barely runs on a 32-bit system (which it assumes to an nth degree---sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *)) and promptly crashes on a 64-bit system.
Horrible, horrible code.
You can write clean C without casts and treating everything as an integer, but you have to start your code with that goal.
As a C programmer, I would also agree. "Everything is an int" is not a good way to be thinking about things. There's a reason that `intptr_t` exists. Well written C shouldn't rely on any integers being specific sizes or the same size unless you're using the standard types for that purpose (Llke `uint8_t`, `uint32_t`, etc.). Even then, you probably don't need them in a lot of cases, and you should basically never be casting integers into pointers unless you're using the above `intptr_t`, or `uintptr_t`. Even then, you're probably still better off just making your life simple and use a `union`.
That said, I would argue that minimal explicit casts is a pretty good goal for any C programs - I find that crazy casting tends to be a sign something could be done better. But obviously, casts are definitely necessary in some instances, so it's not like "castless" code is guaranteed to be the right way to do things anyway.
To clarify, I should probably have said "integer" to avoid confusion with the C type called "int", or to be more accurate ℤ/w for a variety of widths w.
I didn't mean "C is nice because I can just write 'int' for all the types and it works", I meant "C is nice because it represents data in a very conceptually uniform way: either as integer, or 'pointers' which are themselves integers."
The current world population is an integer, my bank account number is an integer, but that doesn't make it's meaningful to add them together. Values can have the same representation without being the same type :)
> "Everything is an int" is not a good way to be thinking about things. There's a reason that `intptr_t` exists.
intptr_t
integer type capable of holding a pointer
They're integers :)
> Well written C shouldn't rely on any integers being specific sizes or the same size unless you're using the standard types for that purpose (Llke `uint8_t`, `uint32_t`, etc.).
I never said it should; but from that same cppreference site:
int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t
signed integer type with width of exactly 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits respectively
These are also integers :)
> you should basically never be casting integers into pointers
Again, I never said you should. I didn't say, or mean, anything about casts.
Horrible, horrible code.
You can write clean C without casts and treating everything as an integer, but you have to start your code with that goal.