Re: Code Comprehension

Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Just one thing. I'm not trolling (or at least not consciously). By
interest in this discussion is that if I could convince enough people
about my C style, I could read more easily C code out there.

If I could convince everyone who writes Lisp to write it like Perl,
I could more easily read the Lisp code out there. :-)

For what it's worth, Pascal, I've been slamming you a lot in this
thread, and I should point out that I appreciate where (I think)
your motivation comes from. Compared to a language like Lisp, or
really a lot of languages out there, C has some distasteful aspects
about it. It's easy to look at C and wish it were more like another
language that is cleaner and more expressive. And it's easy to try
to make it into that. But C will never have closures or lambda
functions or garbage collection[1] or any of a hundred other useful
and nice things.

So, I think the efforts to bring some of the nicer things to C come
from a good motivation. I just don't think it's always possible.
Pushing too hard to make C into something that it's not can make
things worse, and that has been the reason for my criticism. At
least for most of it. :-)

- Logan

[1] or at least garbage collection which isn't a third-party,
non-native hack
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: multiple namespaces
    ... Pascal Bourguignon writes: ... You should be programming instead of pondering uselessly these questions. ... I appreciate your pragmatic attitude. ... what language I should be programming a particular project in. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Calling Process-run-function
    ... > Pascal Bourguignon wrote: ... >> Syntax is usually specified under the form of a grammar.... ... LOOP:: a Domain Specific Language. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)