Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes, you said that, and I had acknowledged that; meanwhile twice.On 2026-06-11 18:30, Waldek Hebisch wrote:But this paragraph was closely linked to the text above. Dan CrossJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:>On 2026-06-09 03:25, Waldek Hebisch wrote:>[...]>
Interesting views. - Thanks.
>>>
I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already
struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation
could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard
rules to other programmers.
I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience
I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal"
in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a
mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is
more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being
formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries;
in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's
thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical]
formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts.
And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising.
That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal
specifications.
You sniped most of what I wrote.
Yes, because I acknowledged it by my above on-line remark already
(and I didn't want to waste space unnecessarily). (No offense!)
>
I intended to comment just on the one paragraph above, with its
assumption that it may be an inherent problem to programmers.
wanted formal semantics and my paragraph was responding to this.
I think that lawyerish style of current C standard is mostly inertia,
and making standard more mathematical would improve it. But giving
formal semantic in the standard would mean significantly bigger
change.
I'm not sure why you persistently insist on any relation to your
previous text when all what *I* wanted to comment on in your post
was just _one aspect_ in your last paragraph, which was:
>>>>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers.
>>>>> They already struggle with current standard text.
And I expressed that I refute that view and I explained my view.
If you think your statement about "normal programmers" (whatever
you imply with "normal") is correct and my perception with people
is in any way wrong we can discuss that.
(On your other text I see nothing that we'd need to discuss.)
Janis
[...]
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.