Re: question about linker

On 04.12.2024 13:08, David Brown wrote:

On 03/12/2024 17:12, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 03.12.2024 16:24, David Brown wrote:

On 03/12/2024 13:34, Bart wrote:

[...]

>
Of course lots of C programmers have never read the standards.  But they
generally know that they don't know these details, and don't try to
pretend that the language details that they don't know are confusing.
They simply get on with the job of writing clear C code as best they
can.

>
I feel an urge to point out that the C standard is not necessary to
understand concepts that can be read about in textbooks or inferred
(or just tried out, if the available sources are unclear about some
detail).

 
Sure.  And it is certainly /possible/ to know all the small details of C
without ever reading the standards.  But it's quite unlikely.

The question is (IMO) not so much to know "all" and even "all small"
details. Even in a language like "C" (that I'd consider to be fairly
incoherent if compared to other languages' design) you can get all
"important" language properties (including details) from textbooks.

If cases where that is different, the standards documents - which
have their very own special way of being written - would be even
less comprehensibly as they (inherently) already are. - That said
from a programmer's POV (not from the language implementors').

I look into language standards only if I want to confirm/falsify
an implementation; in this case I'm taking the role of a language
implementor (not a programmer). Personally I do that anyway only
rarely, for specific languages only, and just out of academical
interest.

[...]
Bart is an expert at thinking up things in C that confuse him.

Well, that's an own topic. - Where I was really astonished was the
statement of being confused about the braces/semicolons, which is
so fundamental (and primitive) but technically just a detail that
I'd thought it should be clear - i.e. without reading a language
standard. - But I don't want to blame him (or anyone) on that.
Ignorance is the human standard case, knowledge the exception.
That's why we exchange or knowledges, assumptions, and opinions.

In the
real world, programmers simply don't do that kind of thing - and the
kind of C programmer who is interested in these details will almost
certainly also be interested in reading the standards.

Again I feel an urge to point out that there are people interested
in such things and details (academically) and don't need standards.

 
Most C programmers never look at the standards - textbooks, decent
reference sites (like www.cppreference.com), common sense, and trial and
error with quality compilers is sufficient for most programmers.

Experiences from other languages help as well to understand things.

 
There's nothing at all wrong with not knowing [...]

Yes. Ignorance is the human standard case, knowledge the exception.

("ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat", sort of.)

The second is trying to pass the buck - blame your
tools, blame other people, blame anyone but yourself. [...]

...or build your own tools - LOL. :-)

Yes, that's a bit annoying. And a waste of time.

Janis