Below are some rules that I have developed over a long period of time writing fully encapsulated C programs. C is my favorite language and I love the freedom and exploration it allows me. I also love that it is so close to Assembly and I love writing assembly for much of the same reasons!

NOTE: You may see references to ‘perfect encapsulation’ throughout. I offer both a ‘performance’ and a ‘pure encapsulation’ approach to C here (first two headers). So feel free to interpret the rest of the rules based on the approach.


Pure encapsulation

One of the great things about C is that it allows for “pure encapsulation”. What this means is that you can explain all the intent of your code through the header file and the developer who uses your lib/code never has to look at the actual implementations of the code. Now to take this a step further, well all know that C supports the struct keyword to group data, and we can also make the members of a struct hidden completely from the developer using the library. For example, we could declare the following header and C files:


#ifndef VEC3_H
#define VEC3_H

struct Vec3;



#include "vec3.h"

struct Vec3 {
	float x;
	float y;
	float z;

As you can see in the above code sample, if you were just to have the header file, you would not know that this vector is implemented using 3 floats. This is very important for pure encapsulation. With this, you can completely control the behavior of the struct and it’s contents using readable functions and not worry about the developer using the code directly mutating the members of your struct. Now that you’ve created pure encapsulation, you are able to feel safe knowing that developers can’t new up the struct or abuse it’s contents from anywhere other than through the code you’ve written in your c file.

No encapsulation performance

One of the flaws with pure encapsulation is that you can see a drop in performance. Having a bunch of functions to get inner members of a structure also blocks the compiler from optimizing it’s best. Member hiding is not usually because we don’t trust the end developer with the secrets of our structures, but is often so they don’t make mistakes by changing things they shouldn’t. Also member hiding helps so that we can easily update our code without changing the interface that developers rely on.

That being said, if we are dealing with performance critical code, or just want extra optimization by our compiler (and/or to write less code); we can expose the members of our structure. However, let’s be smart about exposing these members so that developers don’t accidentally make mistakes with their new found power.

Enter const, our best friend in this scenario. We can not only mark our members as const before their type, but also after their type. The general rule of thumb to remember is, if it is a pointer, the const goes after the type, otherwise put it before the type. In the simple example below, you can see how pointers have the const after, and the rest have const before their type declaration.

struct Employer {
	char* const name;
	const int years;

struct Employee {
	struct Employer* const employer;
	char* const name;
	const int age;

In this way we are able to expose the fields of the struct to the rest of the code for compiler optimizations, ease of access, etc; while also being able to prevent developers from directly assigning/changing the values of those fields. The obvious downside to this is that you will need to either create a macro, or manually cast assign the fields to change them in the implementation C file. I would recommend, if you are using C17, to use _Generic and macros so you can create a single #define OVERRIDE(field) type of macro and have the compiler throw if it finds an un-expected type. Of course, if you don’t want to use a macro, you can also create separate inline functions to do the same (just might be harder to manage). Below is an example of how we can tell the compiler we want to explicitly change the value in the implementation c file.

// employee.c file

void employee_set_age(struct Employee* employee, int newAge) {
	// Cast away the const and set it's value, the compiler should optimize this for you
	*(int*)&employee->age = newAge;

Memory ownership

With perfect encapsulation you are most of the way towards having good memory ownership. If you purely encapsulate your structs the only way for a developer to create a new instance of the struct would be through functions you create yourself. From this point you can create the new and free functions to manage the memory of your struct. Below is an example building upon the previous code sample.


#ifndef VEC3_H
#define VEC3_H

struct Vec3;

struct Vec3* Vec3_new();
void Vec3_free(struct Vec3* vector);
void Vec3_print(struct Vec3* vector);



#include "vec3.h"
#include <stdio.h>

struct Vec3 { /* ... */ };

struct Vec3* Vec3_new()
	struct Vec3* v = malloc(sizeof(struct Vec3));
	v->x = 0.0F;
	v->y = 0.0F;
	v->z = 0.0F;
	return v;

void Vec3_free(struct Vec3* vector)

void Vec3_print(struct Vec3* vector)
	printf("<%f, %f, %f>", vector->x, vector->y, vector->z);

Above you can see that we encapsulate the creation, usage, and freeing of our struct. You would think, well with this, what else do we need to know about memory management? Well there is one more thing, more of a rule that you must follow more than anything else. The thing that declares the memory is the thing that should free the memory. We see this in action above, the c file that creates the memory in turn has a function for freeing the memory.

Now let’s look at another example using a char* to represent a string function. Here we have a function that takes a string and clones it (wrong way):

char* strclone(const char* str)
	size_t len = strlen(s) + 1;
	char* clone = malloc(len);
	memcpy(clone, str, len);
	return clone;

Now what is wrong with the memory management on this code? Answer, we are using malloc to create memory and then return the string. Let’s take a look at the developer using this.

char* str = "Hello Brent!\0";
char* cpy = strclone(str);
free(cpy);	// Allowed?

How is the developer suppose to know that they are to free the char*? For all they know the strclone uses some-sort of pooling functionality to re-use a pool of memory, we can’t free that otherwise you risk seg-faulting. What is a better version of this?

void strclone(const char* str, char** outCpy)
	size_t len = strlen(s) + 1;
	*outCpy = malloc(len);
	memcpy(outCpy, str, len);

Now with this version we make it explicit that the developer should manage their own object that they pass in. We use the hint name out as a prefix to the argument name to let them know memory will be allocated for this input variable. What does this look like to the developer?

char* str = "Hello Brent!\0";
char* cpy;
strclone(str, &cpy);

Looking at this version, the developer knows they are in charge of freeing the cpy, this is because they declare the variable in the first place, rather than being assigned from a function. If the developer follows our rule (The thing that declares the memory is the thing that should free the memory), they declared the variable/pointer so they should be the ones freeing it. Now I know you can argue all sorts of alternative setups for the return value, but the fact of the matter is that passing in a pointer to a pointer is much more clear of ownership.

Avoid void*

One stigma people have against C is the use of void*, some think it is necessary, some use it to solve problems quickly through the path of least resistance, I say that there are very few cases when void* is acceptable and most of the time your current problem isn’t it. Like NULL, void* is a lazy solution to a problem and causes all kinds of un-necessary runtime checking.

In most cases you should create a struct that explicitly defines what type is accepted or stored. The biggest advantage of this approach is that you put the compiler to work for you. There are all sorts of compile-time checks that will prevent you from doing something you shouldn’t do. Also your IDE will be much more helpful when trying to navigate code as the IDE, nor the compiler, have any idea where a void* comes from or what it points to.

Don’t over-complicate strings

If I want to live in the 2020 era of programming, that means I probably will wind up using more than one library to solve a problem. My new problem is that people think it is cute to typedef char* to some other name and only accept that name in their code. In the era of UTF8, that is completely un-necessary and makes me have to do a lot of senseless casting. If you want to encapsulate that you are using a string (so I don’t know it) then cool, do that, but typedef unsigned char* string is not it. Please stick to the good ol’ char* for strings.

Don’t over-complicate stdlib


Use utf8 strings

Talking about strings, I’d like to point out that UTF-8 is fully compatible with ASCII, this means we don’t need special functions for special characters or non English characters. All of our usual suspects of functions work on UTF-8 such as fopen! There are some helpful other things we can use thanks to compilers such as placing u8 in front of an in-line string:

char* utf8 = u8"Hello World!";

So in closing on the UTF-8 topic, please stop using wchar_t, char16_t, and all those other variants (except when you are forced to, due to 3rd party libraries). With that, I’ll leave you with this helper function to get you started:

size_t utf8len(const char* const str) {
    size_t len = 0;
    for (size_t i = 0; *str != 0; ++len) {
        int v0 = (*str & 0x80) >> 7;
        int v1 = (*str & 0x40) >> 6;
        int v2 = (*str & 0x20) >> 5;
        int v3 = (*str & 0x10) >> 4;
        str += 1 + v0 * v1 + v0 * v1 * v2 + v0 * v1 * v2 * v3;
    return len;

NOTE 1: This does not validate the utf8 string. I am not fond of making the length function also validate the string, for that we should create a separate method for validation. Using this table I found on Wikipedia we can construct a validation function (also this table was used for the length function).

bool utf8valid(const char* const str) {
    if (str == NULL)
        return false;
    const char* c = str;
    bool valid = true;
    for (size_t i = 0; c[0] != 0 && valid;) {
        valid = (c[0] & 0x80) == 0
            || ((c[0] & 0xE0) == 0xC0 && (c[1] & 0xC0) == 0x80)
            || ((c[0] & 0xF0) == 0xE0 && (c[1] & 0xC0) == 0x80 && (c[2] & 0xC0) == 0x80)
            || ((c[0] & 0xF8) == 0xF0 && (c[1] & 0xC0) == 0x80 && (c[2] & 0xC0) == 0x80 && (c[3] & 0xC0) == 0x80);
        int v0 = (c[0] & 0x80) >> 7;
        int v1 = (c[0] & 0x40) >> 6;
        int v2 = (c[0] & 0x20) >> 5;
        int v3 = (c[0] & 0x10) >> 4;
        i += 1 + v0 * v1 + v0 * v1 * v2 + v0 * v1 * v2 * v3;
        c = str + i;
    return valid;

NOTE 2: Something that developers trip on is the file encoding for their source file. Be sure you are using UTF-8 encoding for your source file when typing UTF-8 strings directly into your source code. If you use the wrong encoding, the compiler may compile the inline string with the incorrect encoding, even with the u8 prefix.

Don’t use char for memory array, use uint8_t

In making code readable, you should only use char* or unsigned char* for strings (character arrays). If you want a block of bytes/memory pointer, then you should use uint8_t* where uint8_t is part of stdint.h. This makes the code much more readable where memory is represented as an unsighned 8-bit array of numbers (byte array). Now you can trust when you see a char* that it is referring to a UTF-8 (or ASCII) character array (text).

Use standard bool

This one is easy:

#include <stdbool.h>

Don’t make defines for false, or False, or FALSE and it’s true counterpart, please just use the standard library.

Don’t use static or global variables

So static functions are fine, they are great for breaking up functions to be readable. However, static variables are bad and almost always not needed. Remember that we are living in a world where our CPUs are not getting faster, they are just coming in larger quantities. Always think about threadability and controlling mutation. Even with a variable that is static to a C file and not global, you never know if someone is using threads to call your functions.

Prefer inline over macro

Functions that are inline are much more readable, work better with your IDE code searching, and are much more readable when you get errors/warnings from the compiler. Some macros are great, don’t ban them altogether, but do consider if you can do what you need through an inline function first.

Test your functions

C is beautiful in the fact that you don’t need unit test frameworks to fully test your code. It’s lack of objects and hidden state make it even better for testing. If you create a function, make a test for it and give it your known test case arguments. Did I mention that I love not having to have a big complicated mocking library to fully test my code? If your function takes in a complicated struct for some reason, feel free to define out/in a test function for creating the struct you expect to be testing (do NOT comprimise perfect encapsulation for the sake of testing).

Write functions to do one thing

Okay, this isn’t a C only thing, but make sure your functions are not creating large call stacks. Feel free to use static or static inline local functions to break up the readability of large functions if you just can’t seem to make functions do a single thing (for performance for example).

Don’t write systems, write modular pieces (think UNIX)

Don’t write big complicated systems to cover many problems, even if things are losely related in many ways. It is better to break up your code into useful functional pieces and cleverly put them together to have complex behavior. The beauty of Unix is that you can get many things done through many small programs pieced together. In the same way, you should develop useful functions that can be pieced together through data.

Warnings are errors

This one is a bit short. The idea is simple, warnings are errors.

  1. Make sure ALL warnings are enabled (/Wall).
  2. Make sure that you turn on warnings as errors

Note: If you copied some source code from the internet that you need and it is producing warnings, turn it into a lib and use the lib, do not comprimise your code for other people’s un-checked code. You’d be surprised how many popular libraries fail warnings as errors test (often they develop assuming 32-bit code).

If there is a standard, use it

This was touched on before with stdbool.h, but if there is a standard function or type, use it. Use things like int32_t over just int hoping that int will be 32-bit. If there is a standard function for doing something, don’t re-invent the wheel. Wrapping standard functions such as malloc and free I would consider a necessary evil if you are creating tools to detect memory leaks and the like though.

Use float epsilon for 0 checking

First of all, don’t check a floating point value against 0 or 0.0F. Instead check it against Epsilon like in the following:

#include <math.h>
#include <float.h>

int main(void)
	float x = 1.0F;
	x -= 1.0F;
	if (fabsf(x) <= FLT_EPSILON)
		// ... The value is basically 0, do some stuff
	return 0;

Alternatively you can choose a fractionally small number like 0.0001F to check against if that is your cup of tea as well. The reason is floating point precision errors (which you probably know or have heard of by now). I enjoy FLT_EPSILON because it is part of the float.h lib and a standard for everyone to use.

Zero Set Your Structs

One thing that would get me when developing in C is pointers inside of objects not being set to NULL. Now I know I speak about hating that the idea of NULL exists, but when working with other people’s code it is impossible for you not to run into a situation where you need to set a pointer to NULL, pass a NULL or check a pointer against NULL. So do yourself a favor and always use calloc (or memset(&thing, 0, sizeof(thing)) if it isn’t a pointer or new memory). Of course this doesn’t ban the use of malloc, in fact you should continue to use it on buffers, but as programmers, we have a problem with not touching code that works and you think it is fine to just add in that extra field, but if it is a pointer and you don’t initialize it to NULL where needed, you’re in for a world of hurt.

Big types first

When you create a structure, put the biggest types at the top of your struct and the smallest types at the bottom. Platforms like the x86 will magically help you with this (at a cost), but other platforms (like ARM) will generate SEGFALT if you don’t properly do this. This is because of padding in a struct. If you put a bool as the first field and a int32_t as the second field in a struct, like the one below, you will have a problem where you pack 1 byte, then 4 bytes into the struct, effectively having a 5 byte struct. The problem here is that the CPU is optimized to read along memory boundaries. When you malloc, you won’t get an odd memory address for example.

struct Bad {
	bool first;
	int32_t second;

struct Good {
	int32_t first;
	bool second;

More to come

There are inevitably more things I’ve forgotten about, but I’ve written this all in one sitting so this is good enough for now until I can update!