4 ms·
C is not what I would call a very readable language. I don’t think you could drop someone who newly learned C and have them be effective looking at glibc for ex
by plandis 3y ago
C is not what I would call a very readable language. I don’t think you could drop someone who newly learned C and have them be effective looking at glibc for example.
- queuebert 3y agoBecause of the use or abuse of macros, different C codebases can look very different, and to learn it you have to figure out all the quirky macros. If people stick to standard C with few macros and verbose variable names, it's really not bad.
- duped 3y agovoid* (*identifier) (void*); typedef struct { /* ... */ } my_struct_t; static return_type name_of_function (type *restrict argument) { int a, b, c; /* body */ } Just some examples of illegible syntax that's "standard" C. C is not a pretty language. It's small, but it's ugly as sin.
- dcow 3y agoIt's nearly impossible to actually parse anything more complex than a pointer to a struct in C because it wasn't written for humans, it is a relic of using a convenient recursive descent parser to parse C's syntax that we end up with `void* (*id) (void*)`...