From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:01:52 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <9d542c9cc6c2204f12a005883e865169@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121030005248.65C58B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <15723310.yIARpoJMSL@coil>
	<4824335454f1b1d47dbc8439b4af8ea3@kw.quanstro.net>
	<20121029223541.8C198B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<0f05642b113b3ecfc160e82a9ca4db32@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20121029232652.5160BB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<74f73b64cc6de4a3bd10367591439816@kw.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hiQtCi=A8q5GL7-c_g1ZurVm2BMxbVE2kxXsFMxec5XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121030005248.65C58B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cccd4a5e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> The C standard is not too hard to understand. For something
> worse try one of those ITU standards! Try IEEE 802 standards!
> I have had to read the Bridging standard many many more times
> (compared to the C standard) to make sense of it.  The
> standards *shouldn't* be so horrible but they are.  And one
> does what is needed to get the job done.

this is logical fallacy.

the fact that there are larger and more obtuse standards,
does not mean that the c standard is readable or understandable,
by their normal definitions.

> > Actually, it's wrong, because it overlooks the side-effect, and an
> > optimiser for a language with side-effects
> > should take that into account.
>
> They put in "volatile" to ensure side-effects happen. Hasn't
> worked too well.

that's incorrect.  it was a hack to try to sneak a memory
model in the side door.  side effects are something else entirely.

- erik