Re: do { quit; } else { }

On 2025-04-13, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 13/04/2025 15:34, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-04-13, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 13/04/2025 03:27, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 12.04.2025 13:00, bart wrote:

>

But I also 100% hate its syntax and various other bits and pieces. (OK,
about 80% then.)

>
(I also don't like its syntax too much. I think I'm just complaining
less than you about that. BTW, I've got the impression that all the
shortcomings of "C" are well known by most regulars here; they just
handle these facts in discussions differently than you.)

>
The shortcomings are downplayed considerably. Especially in discussions
involving me because they don't like it whenever someone states the obvious.
>
But also, most here have to use it professionally, so have learned to
work around it.

 
There are lots of examples of people just liking C.

>
C itself, or the things that C allowed you to do?

Me, I like C. I use C in side projects. I will code in C no matter what
I use at work.

C is the only acceptable non-Lisp.

Well, given Knuth's own language was MIX (assembly for a made-up
machine), it is not surprising he prefers C.

He wrote TeX in Pascal though. The Web system includes a Pascal to C
translator. (I don't know the details.)

C has spawned imitation in the form of "C like" languages, that all
started as grenfield projects that could have chosen any syntax
they wanted.

>
Some of this is to be expected: if they started off using brace syntax,
then their language will use braces. But some of the things they copy
are odd, like this for-loop from JS:
>
   for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {

The first time I encountered a C for loop used for non-numbers
was a watershed moment for me. I rubbed my eyes once or twice.

"Wow, wait, you can do that?"

It might have been in the source code of an IRC client I was
compiling, where it had something like this:

   for (node = list; node; node = node->next)

I realized, OMG, this is a great way of defining a for loop
construct. This is why for is the way it is.

So much better than the crap languages I used before which restricted a
dummy variable into going from one number to another.

That might have been the point after which I didn't look back.

Later I learned that much of the cool stuff around control flow
and expressions in C actually came from Lisp.

- Ternary if:  (if test then else).

- Expressions having values, even assignments:  (setq a (setq b (setq c 0)))

- Loops working with arbitrary data types.

Is it that hard to provide a proper for-loop where you don't have to
spell out every single detail? Fortran managed it in the 1950s!

No, it isn't, especially if you don't need once-only evaluation of the
range points:

#define for_range (type, var, from, to) \
   for (type var = from; var <= to; var++)

Anyway, languages should be programmable so you're not stuck with
the loop that is built into the parser.

If I were to pick a non-C language for systems programming today, I
would take a serious look at Thomas Mertes' Seed 7, probably.

It lets you define new statement and such.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca