C Syntax

[C# Learner]

Why is C syntax so uneasy on the eye?

In its day, was it _really_ designed by snobby programmers to scare away
potential "n00bs"? If so, and after 50+ years of programming research,
why are programming languages still being designed with C's syntax?

These questions drive me insane. Every waking minute...

[Stephen Sprunk]

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote in message
news:eu******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

One of the biggest flaws in C syntax, in my opinion, is the required
parentheses for test conditions.
Without the parens you would need a "then" keyword of some kind. It seems
like an even trade.
Another nicety about Python is the fact that whitespace is used for
defining code blocks. This makes code much clearer than the equivalent
C code, which requires block being/end markers.
OTOH, C not using whitespace to mean anything gives programmers lots of
flexibility in how they format their source code to improve readability.

Block begin/end markers are very useful, and having such things explicit
arguably makes things easier for both the compiler and subsequent coders.
Here's a very simple Python code sample:
http://www.kernelthread.com/hanoi/html/py.html .

Try staring at it for one minute.

After having done so, take a look at this:
http://www.kernelthread.com/hanoi/html/c.html .

Even if one's accustomed to C syntax, the former is still clearer and
easier-to-read, don't you think?

That depends on the reader; the C version is far clearer to me. You also
put error-checking into the C version that's not in the Python one, which is
unfair when considering code length.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin

[I. Appel]

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote in message
news:eS******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

These are trivialities. Learn five or six computer languages (or three
or four
that are entirely unrelated to each other), /then/ formulate your opinion.

Well, I have learned BASIC, C-like languages (C and C++), Delphi
(formerly named 'Object Pascal') and Smalltalk.

So, basically, I've learned a couple of procedural languages, and a
couple of OO ones.

And which one do seems you the best?
Which one seems to have the best syntax?

All your languages are Algol-derivative, so they share equivalent
syntactic constructs and all them are similar.

Try to learn something truly alternative. Try FORTRAN 77, the language
without any flame wars about indentation. Try LISP, the language with
syntax based on two symbols. Then come back.

When personally I met C, I already knew BASIC and Pascal and I was amused
by the expressiveness and brevity of C's syntax. I still think that
for (i=0;i<10;i++) {...}
is much better than
for i:=0 to 9 do begin ... end;
Some languages are exceedingly suscinct (i.e. APL or RPG), and
some are very verbose (i.e. COBOL, SNOBOL, PL/I, Assembly (any processor)). Some languages are procedural, some are OO, some are list processors,
some are
macro languages. Learn a few, see what they do and where they are used.

Only then can you conduct a reasonable conversation on the topic.

I don't understand why I'd need to learn a few more languages to
understand that C's basic syntax could be nicer.

Suggest some improvements and I'll say you, why you're wrong ;-)

[C# Learner]

[I'll do the courtesy of a reply at the risk of getting flamed by the
comp.lang.c police.]

I. Appel wrote:

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote in message
news:eS******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

These are trivialities. Learn five or six computer languages (or three
or four
that are entirely unrelated to each other), /then/ formulate your
opinion.

Well, I have learned BASIC, C-like languages (C and C++), Delphi
(formerly named 'Object Pascal') and Smalltalk.

So, basically, I've learned a couple of procedural languages, and a
couple of OO ones.

And which one do seems you the best?
Which one seems to have the best syntax?

I'd say Delphi has the clearest syntax.

[...]
I don't understand why I'd need to learn a few more languages to
understand that C's basic syntax could be nicer.

Suggest some improvements and I'll say you, why you're wrong ;-)

Simply:

1) Remove the need to specify parentheses for test conditions --
substitute a test condition terminator, such as Python's ':'.

2) Remove begin/end code block markers and require indentation instead.

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

C# Learner <cs****@learner .here> wrote:

[I'll do the courtesy of a reply at the risk of getting flamed by the
comp.lang.c police.]
[No police around, only conscious people.]
I. Appel wrote:

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote: <snip>

Well, I have learned BASIC, C-like languages (C and C++), Delphi
(formerly named 'Object Pascal') and Smalltalk.

So, basically, I've learned a couple of procedural languages, and a
couple of OO ones. <snip>

Note:
"Procedural " and "OO" are not mutually exclusive language concepts.
Smalltalk is a functional language.
I don't understand why I'd need to learn a few more languages to
understand that C's basic syntax could be nicer.

Suggest some improvements and I'll say you, why you're wrong ;-)

Simply:

1) Remove the need to specify parentheses for test conditions --
substitute a test condition terminator, such as Python's ':'.

2) Remove begin/end code block markers and require indentation instead.

Who or what is keeping you from designing a language incorporating the
worst of BASIC/Pascal/Python/FORTRAN/etc. worlds? Not that it will
ever have a fighting chance to be used by anyone for anything but as
an example of a language with a syntax "uneasy to the eye".

"Doctor, it hurts when I look at C."
"Well, then don't."

Regards
--
Irrwahn Grausewitz (ir*******@free net.de)
welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html

[Grumble]

Lew Pitcher wrote:

I resemble that remark! :-)

You resemble[1] that remark? Are you intangible?

Do you also resent[2] that remark?

[1] to be like or similar to
[2] to feel or express annoyance or ill will at

[Richard Bos]

C# Learner <cs****@learner .here> wrote:

Why is C syntax so uneasy on the eye?

Beware the troll! This is cross-posted inappropriately .

Richard

[Paul Hsieh]

"Justin Rogers" <Ju****@games4d otnet.com> wrote:

Note that they point out you can leave out parens only when it won't lead to
ambiguity. C doesn't make that mistake. They make sure there is no
ambiguity, and if you leave out a parens it doesn't make the statement
ambiguous, it makes it a different or erroneous statement altogether.

C has plenty of ambiguity:

- Braces are optional if there is only one statement for if() or for() or
while(). (But not for do ... while(), switch, or structure/union
declarations.)

- If a statement has multiple side effects, the order in which those side
effects take place can be unknown.

- The right shift operator may or may not sign extend signed integers. Its
implementation defined.

- The size of an integer is platforms specific.

- The number of bits in a bytes is platform specific.

- Try this one on for size:

char a = -1, b = -2;
unsigned short x = (1 > 0) ? a : b;

printf ("x = %d\n", x);

What do you think is printed out? Explain it.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/

[Jeremy Yallop]

Paul Hsieh wrote:

"Justin Rogers" <Ju****@games4d otnet.com> wrote:

Note that they point out you can leave out parens only when it won't lead to
ambiguity. C doesn't make that mistake. They make sure there is no
ambiguity, and if you leave out a parens it doesn't make the statement
ambiguous, it makes it a different or erroneous statement altogether.

C has plenty of ambiguity:

- Braces are optional if there is only one statement for if() or for() or
while(). (But not for do ... while(), switch, or structure/union
declarations.)

The braces are also optional on switch and do-while statements:

do something(); while (not_finished() );

switch (expression)
statement;

Struct or union declarations are not relevant: their components are
declarations, not statements.

None of your other examples were syntactically ambiguous.

Jeremy.

[Dan Pop]

In <uL************ **@TK2MSFTNGP11 .phx.gbl> C# Learner <cs****@learner .here> writes:

Why is C syntax so uneasy on the eye?

Uneasiness is in the eye of the beholder...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Grumble]

C# Learner wrote:

Simply:

1) Remove the need to specify parentheses for test conditions --
substitute a test condition terminator, such as Python's ':'.

#define if if (
#define then )

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if argc-1 == 0 then return 666;
return 0;
}