> The example is called listcopy, so assuming it does that, I don't think there are many modern languages where you could remove a line and have other (experien

> The example is called listcopy, so assuming it does that, I don't think there are many modern languages where you could remove a line and have other (experienced) programmers not pick up on that. Thing is, if the hypothesis is that the complexities of pointers make C harder to read than other languages, this example does not prove that, because its use of pointer features is completely gratuitous. Below I attempted to write a saner version of the same C function. I removed the pointer arithmetic and casts in favor of just using a struct, not because I wanted to avoid those features for demonstration purposes, but because that's what any sane C code would do. I also changed it from accepting a pointer-to-pointer, where the pointee is originally the input value and is then replaced with the output value, to just taking the input as an argument and returning the output – again, because that's the simple and obvious choice. As it happens, the resulting code's use of pointers is limited enough that it could be directly transliterated to Java or any other high-level imperative language. Change the `malloc` to a `new`, fix up the syntax, and you're done. Therefore, whatever lack of clarity remains, it can't be due to anything peculiar to C. (I'd say at this point that the code is clear enough that most people would notice if you removed a line, but YMMV. To be fair, my version also shares some flaws with the original such as not checking for allocation failure.) That said, there are plenty of algorithms which are complex or subtle enough that even in a well-written implementation, someone might not notice a line being removed. But that can happen in any language, at least to some extent. struct list { int value; struct list *next; }; struct list * listcopy(struct list *list) { if (list != NULL) { struct list *copied = malloc(sizeof(*list)); copied->value = list->value; copied->next = listcopy(list->next); return copied; } else { return NULL; } }