Update

c.md

@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ Mainstream consensus acknowledges that C is among the best languages for writing
 
 **Is C low or high level?** This depends on the context. Firstly back in the day when most computers were programmed in [assembly](assembly.md), C was seen as high level, simply because it offered the highest level of abstraction at the time, while nowadays with languages like [Python](python.md) and [JavaScript](js.md) around people see C as very low level by comparison -- so it really depends on if you talk about C in context of "old" or "modern" programming and which languages you compare it to. Secondly it also depends on HOW you program in C -- you may choose to imitate assembly programming in C a lot, avoid using libraries, touch hardware directly, avoid using complex features and creating your own abstractions -- here you are really doing low level programming. On the other hand you can emulate the "modern" high-level style programming in C too, you can even mimic [OOP](oop.md) and make it kind of "C++ with different syntax", you may use libraries that allow you to easily work with strings, heavy macros that pimp the language to some spectacular abomination, you may write your own garbage collector etc. -- here you are basically doing high level programming in C.
 
+**[Fun](fun.md)**: `main[-1u]={1};` is a C [compiler bomb](compiler_bomb.md) :) it's a short program that usually makes the compiler produce a huge binary.
+
 ## History and Context
 
 C was developed in 1972 at [Bell Labs](bell_labs.md) alongside the [Unix](unix.md) operating system by [Dennis Ritchie](dennis_ritchie.md) and [Brian Kerninghan](brian_kerninghan.md), as a successor to the [B](b.md) language ([portable](portability.md) language with [recursion](recursion.md)) written by Denis Ritchie and [Ken Thompson](ken_thompson.md), which was in turn inspired by the the [ALGOL](algol.md) language (code blocks, lexical [scope](scope.md), ...).
@@ -75,7 +77,7 @@ Nothing is [perfect](perfect.md), not even C; it was one of the first relatively
 - **Some things could be made simpler**, e.g. using [reverse polish](reverse_polish.md) notation for expressions, rather than expressions with brackets and operator precedence, would make implementations much simpler, increasing sucklessness (of course readability is an argument).
 - **Some things could be dropped entirely** ([enums](enum.md), [bitfields](bitfield.md), possibly also unions etc.), they can be done and imitated in other ways without much hassle.
 - **The preprocessor isn't exactly elegant**, it has completely different syntax and rules from the main language, not very suckless -- ideally preprocessor uses the same language as the base language.
-- **The syntax is sucky sometimes**, e.g. case with variable inside it HAS TO be enclosed in curly brackets but other ones don't, data type names may consist of multiple tokens (`long long int` etc.), multiplication uses the same symbol as pointer dereference (`*`), also it's pretty weird that the condition after `if` has to be in brackets etc., it could be designed better. Keywords also might be better being single chars, like `?` instead of `if` etc. (see [comun](comun.md)). A shorter, natural-language-neutral source code would be probably better. Both line and block comments could be implemented with a single character (e.g. `#` for line comment, ending with a newline or another `#`, `##` for block comment ending with another `##`?).
+- **The syntax is sucky sometimes**, e.g. case with variable inside it HAS TO be enclosed in curly brackets but other ones don't, data type names may consist of multiple tokens (`long long int` etc.), multiplication uses the same symbol as pointer dereference (`*`), many preprocessor commands need to be on separate lines (makes some one liners impossible), also it's pretty weird that the condition after `if` has to be in brackets etc., it could all be designed better. Keywords also might be better being single chars, like `?` instead of `if` etc. (see [comun](comun.md)). A shorter, natural-language-neutral source code would be probably better. Both line and block comments could be implemented with a single character (e.g. `#` for line comment, ending with a newline or another `#`, `##` for block comment ending with another `##`?).
 - **Some undefined/unspecified behavior would maybe be better defined/specified** -- undefined behavior isn't bad in general, it is what allows C to be so fast and efficient in the first place, but some of it has shown to be rather cumbersome; for example the unspecified representation of integers, their binary size and behavior of floats leads to a lot of trouble (unknown upper bounds, sizes, undefined behavior of many operators etc.) while practically all computers have settled on using 8 bit bytes, [two's complement](twos_complement.md) and IEEE754 for [floats](float.md) -- this could easily be made a mandatory assumption which would simplify great many things without doing basically any harm. New versions of C actually already settle on two's complement. This doesn't mean C should be shaped to reflect the degenerate "[modern](modern.md)" trends in programming though!
 - Some basic things that are part of libraries or extensions, like fixed width types and binary literals and possibly very basic I/O (putchar/readchar), could be part of the language itself rather than provided by libraries.
 - All that stuff with *.c* and *.h* files is unnecessary, there should just be one file type -- this isn't part of the language per se, but it's part of its culture.