From: markus schnalke <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ] Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2022 11:46:33 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1n3yNl-7Huemail@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220102040217.CE36D18C08E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Hoi. [2022-01-01 23:02] firstname.lastname@example.org (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. ;-) meillo
next prev parent 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1n3yNl-7Huemail@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ]' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * 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).