4 ms·

I find C syntax awkward, bloated, inconsistent, and gross compared to lisp syntax, but that’s an aesthetic preference. Beyond the personal preferences of indiv

I find C syntax awkward, bloated, inconsistent, and gross compared to lisp syntax, but that’s an aesthetic preference. Beyond the personal preferences of individuals (individuals who probably started with one kind of syntax or another) there are characteristics that have some objective utility. I appreciate that a lot of people start with C-ish syntax, and a similarly large number of people prefer that syntax, but I’ve never heard anything that demonstrated an intrinsic benefit of C syntax.

jstimpfle 9y ago
It's obviously a lot shorter and more distinctive. It's highly optimized for assignments, pointer and array dereferences, address-of operations and data definitions. If that's what you do most of the day, you want C syntax.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
"I appreciate that a lot of people start with C-ish syntax, and a similarly large number of people prefer that syntax, but I’ve never heard anything that demonstrated an intrinsic benefit of C syntax." Short stuff is easier to type and maybe to read. There's that. Far as its "design," it was made by tweaking BCPL to make it run on a PDP-7 and then PDP-11. The assignment change was admitted as personal preference. BCPL itself was an ALGOL with LISP features that had every feature for safety, maintainability, etc chopped off to compile on a terrible piece of hardware they were stuck with. There was little to no design: can't overemphasize they literally just kept what that one machine could compile. Far as C, even structs originally weren't in it but got added after their failed attempts to port UNIX from assembly. Presentation below has proof from historical papers written by BCPL and C inventors. https://vimeo.com/132192250 https://vimeo.com/132192250 People just assume there was sensible design because of all the C code out there (argument from popularity). The brain then starts rationalizing attributes about it that were designed or hacked in for totally different reasons in a past of constrained hardware lacking knowledge or tools of modern, language design. That context no longer applies to most users of C. It's just myth-making by users reinforcing use of it.
- jstimpfle 9y ago
  > The brain then starts rationalizing attributes about it that were designed or hacked in for totally different reasons in a past of constrained hardware lacking knowledge or tools of modern, language design. That context no longer applies to most users of C. It's just myth-making by users reinforcing use of it. That's just _your_ rationalization. I don't think it's commonly claimed that all was set in stone from the beginning. The history is there for everyone to read. Another possible explanation is that C is so minimal (in spirit) and doesn't get in the way, people are able to pull of impressive things, which makes them love C. And now why exactly isn't (the gist of) C sensible design? I fail to see your argument. By the way, please enjoy this cool video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmFGThc5TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmFGThc5TI

jstimpfle 9y ago

It's obviously a lot shorter and more distinctive. It's highly optimized for assignments, pointer and array dereferences, address-of operations and data definitions. If that's what you do most of the day, you want C syntax.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

"I appreciate that a lot of people start with C-ish syntax, and a similarly large number of people prefer that syntax, but I’ve never heard anything that demonstrated an intrinsic benefit of C syntax." Short stuff is easier to type and maybe to read. There's that. Far as its "design," it was made by tweaking BCPL to make it run on a PDP-7 and then PDP-11. The assignment change was admitted as personal preference. BCPL itself was an ALGOL with LISP features that had every feature for safety, maintainability, etc chopped off to compile on a terrible piece of hardware they were stuck with. There was little to no design: can't overemphasize they literally just kept what that one machine could compile. Far as C, even structs originally weren't in it but got added after their failed attempts to port UNIX from assembly. Presentation below has proof from historical papers written by BCPL and C inventors. https://vimeo.com/132192250 https://vimeo.com/132192250 People just assume there was sensible design because of all the C code out there (argument from popularity). The brain then starts rationalizing attributes about it that were designed or hacked in for totally different reasons in a past of constrained hardware lacking knowledge or tools of modern, language design. That context no longer applies to most users of C. It's just myth-making by users reinforcing use of it.

jstimpfle 9y ago
> The brain then starts rationalizing attributes about it that were designed or hacked in for totally different reasons in a past of constrained hardware lacking knowledge or tools of modern, language design. That context no longer applies to most users of C. It's just myth-making by users reinforcing use of it. That's just _your_ rationalization. I don't think it's commonly claimed that all was set in stone from the beginning. The history is there for everyone to read. Another possible explanation is that C is so minimal (in spirit) and doesn't get in the way, people are able to pull of impressive things, which makes them love C. And now why exactly isn't (the gist of) C sensible design? I fail to see your argument. By the way, please enjoy this cool video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmFGThc5TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmFGThc5TI