From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4351 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2022 01:48:58 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Jan 2022 01:48:58 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C35A29D04E; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:48:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBF39CF06; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:48:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 75E2F9CF06; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:48:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (fourwinds.com [63.64.179.162]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556239CE58 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:48:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2021mclG1620484 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2022 17:48:38 -0800 Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (jon@localhost) by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.16.1/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 2021mcbd1620481 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2022 17:48:38 -0800 Message-Id: <202201020148.2021mcbd1620481@darkstar.fourwinds.com> From: Jon Steinhart To: TUHS main list In-reply-to: <20220102012033.GB7055@mcvoy.com> References: <20211231234039.GU31637@mcvoy.com> <202201012000.201K0Fd31610896@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20220102001244.GF10078@mcvoy.com> <20220102012033.GB7055@mcvoy.com> Comments: In-reply-to Larry McVoy message dated "Sat, 01 Jan 2022 17:20:33 -0800." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1620479.1641088118.1@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2022 17:48:38 -0800 X-JON-SPAM: local delivery Subject: Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ] X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Larry McVoy writes: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 08:04:58PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:13 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > > > My big complaint with stuff like Rust, or even Go (sorry Rob), is that they > > > picked a different syntax. Why not just use C syntax and extend it to do > > > what you want? Why must every project redo everything. > > > > Why use C syntax? What was wrong with Fortran, Lisp, or Cobol syntax, > > extended to do what you wanted? > > I'm almost speechless. My progression was Basic, Pascal, C (and later > Fortran, Lisp, no Cobol, I did an Ada Compiler so Ada I guess). Then > on to awk, perl, tcl, I tried to like C++ but couldn't, tried to like > Rust, Go, D, and couldn't. > > If you think any of those other languages remotely approach the elegance > of C, I just don't know what to say. > > C is beautiful, you look at the code and you can see what the hardware > will be doing but it isn't assembler. It's what assembler wished it > could be. It's the right mix of high enough that it works over all > architectures and low enough that you see the hardware. > > You don't see the hardware with any of the other languages you listed. I look at it slightly differently as the person who opened this particular can of worms. I'm not saying that the world should be fixed in stone; for example that there should never be another language because we already have one. I have trouble imagining how the features of C could be added to Fortran, Lisp, or Cobol in a reasonably compatible manner. And I have no issue with C not being an extension of an existing language even though it uses some of the features of other languages; to me C was the first non-clunky programming language. While I find C++ ugly, at least it uses C syntax where possible making it a reasonable transition for programmers. Going back to the original *roff discussion, I would have preferred to see a ".2D" request for *roff that added two-dimensional formatting. Guess what I'm saying is that I'm against change for the sake of change; I'm not against innovation.