From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:32:29 -0400 From: Jon Snader To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc Message-ID: <20070501213229.GA15852@ix.netcom.com> References: <817ee90e37ad2a8ace10b9e70ee57161@coraid.com> <20070501144533.GA14908@ix.netcom.com> <9ab217670705010756x1c626874nb01ab98e084e135d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9ab217670705010756x1c626874nb01ab98e084e135d@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54ee71c0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:56:34AM -0400, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > I've seen more than my fair share of tf = !!value; out there, which is > just awful to read. Yes it is, but in the 25 years that I have been programming in C, I've seen many atrocities. What I haven't seen is a compelling need for a boolean type. As Brian and Dennis say in the preface to K&R, C is a small language. That smallness makes it possible for me to maintain a mental model of what machine code the compiler will generate for a given C statement and to keep essentially the whole language in my head. This, in turn, allows me to write better code. Notice how one can't make similar statements about, say, C++ (at least I can't). The last thing C needs is a bunch of cruft to satisfy language purists or to save the incompetent from themselves. jcs P.S. Sorry Russ. I'll stop now.