The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: markus schnalke <>
Subject: Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2022 11:46:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>


[2022-01-01 23:02] (Noel Chiappa)
>     > From: John Cowan
>     > Why use C syntax? What was wrong with Fortran, Lisp, or Cobol syntax,
>     > extended to do what you wanted?
> Why do all hammers look basically the same? Because there's an 'ideal
> hammer', and over time hammer design has asymtoted toward that 'ideal hammer'
> design.

Hammers don't look so much the same, except that each has a stick
and a head. Seems this example is a too simple one.

Saws for instance look quite differently, even within western
culture, but even more between western and japanese culture!

> So I suspect there is, to some degree, a Platonic 'ideal syntax' for a
> 'classic block-structured' programming language, and to me, C came pretty
> close to it.

I suspect that this assumption is limited to our programming
culture. We can hardly think outside of it. That's for the same
reason, Europeans did not create saws in Japanese style -- they
simply solved the same problems in a different way.

Thus I'd rather call it one of many possible good syntaxes for a
classic block-structured programming language ... and within our
culture about the best one.

But as well, in such views we obviously like to ignore the very
suboptimal `switch' (good for compilers; bad for programmers) and
the not so clean optional braces for single-statement blocks. C's
syntax is by no means as perfect, as we like to see it, but
nonetheless, it is very good. (And I like it a lot myself.)

Btw: With the rest of your message, I agree. Good that we're not
stuck with one syntax (and thus with one programming model)
forever. ;-)


  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-02 10:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-02  4:02 Noel Chiappa
2022-01-02 10:46 ` markus schnalke [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-01-02  4:10 Douglas McIlroy
2021-12-31 15:47 [TUHS] roff(7) Douglas McIlroy
2021-12-31 23:07 ` George Michaelson
2021-12-31 23:40   ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-01 20:00     ` [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ] Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  0:12       ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  1:04         ` John Cowan
2022-01-02  1:20           ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  1:47             ` Steve Nickolas
2022-01-02  2:12               ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  3:56               ` Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  1:48             ` Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  3:04             ` John Cowan
2022-01-02  3:30               ` Warner Losh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ]' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).