I was actually being facetious, but this is not far off from the truth. Nokia was already hurting when iOS and Android gained momentum, but it really took a nosedive pretty much the second the decided to support Windows exclusively.

A crying shame, because they sell some very nice hardware.

That nicely explains Nokia sales figures lately. Something like 30% down this last year.

sigh...

Whatever kid. You win. I have actual work to do.

In ways you cannot undersand, evidently. The distinction on C when comparing type-casted operands is precisely because casting is guaranteed to destroy precision - operands are effectively modified in the process. This has NOTHING to do with the way relational operators work: they behave in a sane way, like they do in every other language on Earth.

Now contrast that with the idiotic PHP decision of setting rules for relational operators leading to circular logic. I know the "this might fool the typical PHP developer" warning went over your head, but ponder on this: on my original PHP code snippet, where's the "loss of precision"?

Where's the casting?

Hell, where do you apply your "object has precedence" mantra on it?

I really can't believe that someone could not only defend this madness so vehemently, but also without really understanding what he/she is talking about. Try a new language, son. It will open your horizons.

PS: I'm a he, not a she.

...sigh...

Yeah. I'm dying to know what the "loss of precision" is when comparing a float to an array to an object.

No, you know what? I don't. Go have fun with your toy websites.

Dude, you are the one who's flat out wrong. Not only C has transitive relationship operators, but the language specification actually states that value comparison operators must be transitive except in cases where precision is lost in type-casting of operands.

So, for example, this might fool the typical PHP developer...

int main(void) {
unsigned long a = 98765UL;
int b = -12345;
short c = 1;

if (a < b) printf("a < b!\n");
if (b < c) printf("b < c!\n");
if (c < a) printf("c < a!\n");
}

...while you're simply rounding off (modifying!) operands in the process. This can be easily show by controlling how casting is performed:

int main(void) {
unsigned long a = 98765UL;
int b = -12345;
short c = 1;

if (a < (long)b) printf("a < b!\n");
if (b < (int)c) printf("b < c!\n");
if (c < (short)a) printf("c < a!\n");
}

Compare this to the brainfuck that is PHP, where comparison rules are well stablished but still manage to produce this crap. I can't believe i'm actually discussing this.

No, it should not be complicated. It does not make sense - PHP is the only, and i mean only language i found with comparison rules that are non-transitive. And even worse, circular.

So are Python, Perl, Ruby and Java, and you won't see anyone comparing them to C. That's a poor argument.

Oh, and by the way. Why do people insists on comparing PHP to C? Isn't PHP supposed to be a high-level, website oriented scripting language?

I ask because i've seen bugs about PHP segfaulting reliably rejected only because "this behavior is consistent with what lower level languages like C do". It's like watching an exploit slowly growing from its infancy.

"Dynamic languages" eh? Show me a "dynamic language" where i can do this (blatantly stolen from this site):

$ cat circular.php
<?php
 
$a = INF;
$b = array();
$c = (object)array();
 
var_dump($a < $b);
var_dump($b < $c);
var_dump($c < $a);
 
$ php circular.php
bool(true)
bool(true)
bool(true)

You're right though. Nonsense confuses me.

Really? Most, if not all of it, is stuff i've ran into in the past. The nonsensical comparison operator results and the so-called "arrays" pop into my mind right now...

I've worked with PHP and its assorted web frameworks enough times to completely relate to what that site tells.

That an amateur language like PHP holds 80% of the web marketshare seems insane until you actually realize that 80% of the web is hardly professionally developed either.

Is that thing still around?

Ditto. Writing a custom malloc is insane for a sensitive security library like this... specially when it is done so carelessly.

The fact that OpenSSL won't even work using regular malloc() suggests that there're more issues waiting to pop up here.