Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...

antispam@fricas.org writes:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 17.09.2024 15:57, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 01.09.2024 22:07, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

[...]  The most important purpose of
the ISO C standard is to be read and understood by ordinary C
developers, not just compiler writers.  [...]

>
Is that part of a preamble or rationale given in the C standard?
>
That target audience would surely surprise me.  Myself I've
programmed in quite some programming languages and never read a
standard document of the respective language, nor did I yet met
any programmer who have done so.  All programmer folks I know used
text books to learn and look up things and specific documentation
that comes with the compiler or interpreter products.  (This is of
course just a personal experience.)
>
I've also worked a lot with standards documents in various areas
(mainly ISO and ITU-T standards but also some others).  [..]

>
My comment is only about the C standard, not any other standards
documents.

>
Yes, that was obvious.
>
Are trying to say that the "C standard" is substantially different
with respect to "readability" to other standards?

>
To other language reference documents - yes.

>
Compared to ISO 10206 (Extended Pascal) I find C standard much
less readible.  So there is difference, but in opposite direction
than you suggest.  Main thing is that C standard is written in
"lawyerish" style, which is confusing to programmers.  OTOH
ISO 10206 is written in precise techincal style, which is
easier.  Of course, neither is a light reading.

I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions.  In
any case I never claimed that the ISO C standard is the most
readable language reference document ever written.  Even if
I were later to decide that the Extended Pascal standard is
better, that doesn't contradict anything I said above.