Re: How to convert Infix notation to postfix notation

On 2009-11-06, spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is your anxiety.

No, it's not.

You're anxious to avoid being laughed at as you
were when you were young,

No, I'm not.

You spend hours preening over how I'm an "autistic twerp", but you don't
actually do even the most basic research.

Hint: I don't actually care whether people laugh at me. I think it's
amusing.

because unlike me, in all probability, you
did not stand up to the bully and fight like a man,

.... lolwut?

which is what we
did in 1964.

I'm glad for you, I guess?

You also don't understand the intent or purpose of the feature.  You're
unlikely to even if it's explained, because you seem to have attained
a nearly supernatural level of willful blindness to even the most trivial
facts, but we have other readers.

This is just silly. I have told you to restrict yourself to C because
you don't understand programming.

This is about C, but...

When you tell me things I already
know, you're wasting my time.

That might be true. However, you've made it pretty clear that it is
not reasonable to assume that you know much of ANYTHING, and that much of
what you think you know is just plain wrong. So rather than assuming
you knew what prototypes were, I told you. Rather than assuming that you
already knew that you have a nearly supernatural level of willful blindness
to even the most trivial facts, I mentioned it.

OK, this is better, but I'm afraid you're wasting my time nonetheless,
because 50% of the effort here is needed to preserve legacy, and the
answer is: eliminate C.

Not until we've got a replacement.

When you can suggest a better language for kernels, you go right ahead
and do that.

All of this legacy nonsense has one solution: OO.

That's not actually a solution to the problem at hand, nor does it address
some of the primary cases where people are using C for new development.

However, the distinction between declaration and definition, like
sequence points, is not a reputable construct.

You keep making all these random assertions, but you never seem to get
around to actually supporting them.

It's a patch which
corrects the blunders and limitations of the past.

And the present, and the forseeable future, because they actually turn out
to be useful. There's substantial benefit to many people in being able to
use a declaration plus an already-compiled hunk of external code, so it's
going to be supported.

It's asking for trouble to have an intermediate level of definition. A
code resource is either available or else it isn't.

Untrue. Source is not binary.

You need to actually learn a radically different programming language.
Your uncritical "expertise" in mistakes doesn't impress me.

Hmm. How about shell, lua, perl, php, Ruby, awk, Objective-C, and Java?
(I'm probably forgetting a couple, I can't actually list all the languages
in which I can muddle through stuff.)

I'm not super excellent at any of those, although I'm pretty good at shell,
and certainly competent in lua and perl. I'm not including C++, as the
language has changed far too much since I was last any good at it. The
others I can do tolerably in, although I'm hardly expert at any but
maybe shell.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Languages that dont suck after Perl?
    ... stupid language making me go through so much work just make a simple ... preffering it to Perl at times given some small convenience wrappers. ... I'm happy that when I program in Lua I have a feeling I've mastered ... you have to go character by character to parse them mentally with a naive ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: [opensuse] c - Segmentation fault on 11.4 - need help figuring out (strtod?)
    ... C is never the wrong language. ... The bash shell is an incredibly powerful programming language and very ... These days I see perl as being unwieldy for most of what I ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Which is better? C, Perl or Shell
    ... >> provide the best solutions between C, perl and shell. ... It's a horrible language otherwise. ... C - If speed is the prime concern, or if portability to platforms wi ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Which is better? C, Perl or Shell
    ... Use shell only when the program will be very short and when a substantial ... It's a horrible language otherwise. ... Perl is a monstrosity that should normally be avoided. ... Of course, these are just my opinions, although they happen to be right; ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: [OT] C Re: carriage return
    ... >> A language that's as successful and prevalent as perl is doing ... >A Postscript, Joe: ... >If I could remove the shell from my system, and ALL the utilities, and use ... But Perl is very useful for CGI programming, ...
    (comp.unix.shell)