4 ms·

Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?

by card_zero 2y ago

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Yeah sure, COBOL is great in that regard. Basically reads as English.
pwilson7 2y ago
nope
pjmlp 2y ago
Those of Algol/Wirth linage, or influenced by then. Then again people complain that they are too verbose, and they rather write in hieroglyph friendly languages.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  Compare char (*(*x())[5])(); and var x: pointer to func() pointer to array[5] of pointer to func() char; or if you wish to replace some keywords with glyphs: var x: ^func() ^[5] ^func() char; And it's always a nice puzzle for the reader to explain why there are three "pointer" in cdecl output and three carets in the ALGOL-like declaration, but only two asterisks in the C declaration.
  - trealira 2y ago
    In this case, the C declaration doesn't match the other two. The variable x is a function that returns a pointer to an array of 5 pointers to functions returning char. Indeed, that's what cdecl.org says: declare x as function returning pointer to array 5 of pointer to function returning char Using the notation you did, that would be: var x: func() ^[5] ^func() char There are only two arrows there now. If you wanted a pointer to a function like this, you would need a third asterisk in the declaration: char (*(*(*x)())[5])();
    - Joker_vD 2y ago
      Oh, good catch, thank you! But I remember an example with some other tricky C expression/type declarator where the number of actual dereferences differed from the amount of asterisks in the code. > Using the notation you did, that would be: Well, it'd be func x() ^[5] ^func() char; ... because it's a function declaration, after all, not a variable.
      - trealira 2y ago
        > But I remember an example with some other tricky C expression/type declarator where the number of actual dereferences differed from the amount of asterisks in the code. Was it this code? void f(int *a) { void *p = &a; ***(int*(*)[])p = 1; } Reading your comment made me think of this. I tried to find the original post for this, but it seems it was deleted. I only found it again through this post: https://zig.news/sobeston/using-zig-and-translate-c-to-understand-weird-c-code-4f8 https://zig.news/sobeston/using-zig-and-translate-c-to-under...
dogleash 2y ago
Depends on the features you want.
chongli 2y ago
Racket Beginning Student [1] language. [1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/beginner.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/beginner.html
- gorjusborg 2y ago
  And its predecessor, Scheme, which is my vote.
unrealhoang 2y ago
for declaring function pointer? Any language with type after name : // c char (*(*x[3])())[5]; // golang var x [3]func() *[5]byte
sitzkrieg 2y ago
forth will contain as much gibberish as you put into it

Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Yeah sure, COBOL is great in that regard. Basically reads as English.

pwilson7 2y ago

nope

pjmlp 2y ago

Those of Algol/Wirth linage, or influenced by then. Then again people complain that they are too verbose, and they rather write in hieroglyph friendly languages.

Joker_vD 2y ago
Compare char (*(*x())[5])(); and var x: pointer to func() pointer to array[5] of pointer to func() char; or if you wish to replace some keywords with glyphs: var x: ^func() ^[5] ^func() char; And it's always a nice puzzle for the reader to explain why there are three "pointer" in cdecl output and three carets in the ALGOL-like declaration, but only two asterisks in the C declaration.
- trealira 2y ago
  In this case, the C declaration doesn't match the other two. The variable x is a function that returns a pointer to an array of 5 pointers to functions returning char. Indeed, that's what cdecl.org says: declare x as function returning pointer to array 5 of pointer to function returning char Using the notation you did, that would be: var x: func() ^[5] ^func() char There are only two arrows there now. If you wanted a pointer to a function like this, you would need a third asterisk in the declaration: char (*(*(*x)())[5])();
  - Joker_vD 2y ago
    Oh, good catch, thank you! But I remember an example with some other tricky C expression/type declarator where the number of actual dereferences differed from the amount of asterisks in the code. > Using the notation you did, that would be: Well, it'd be func x() ^[5] ^func() char; ... because it's a function declaration, after all, not a variable.
    - trealira 2y ago
      > But I remember an example with some other tricky C expression/type declarator where the number of actual dereferences differed from the amount of asterisks in the code. Was it this code? void f(int *a) { void *p = &a; ***(int*(*)[])p = 1; } Reading your comment made me think of this. I tried to find the original post for this, but it seems it was deleted. I only found it again through this post: https://zig.news/sobeston/using-zig-and-translate-c-to-understand-weird-c-code-4f8 https://zig.news/sobeston/using-zig-and-translate-c-to-under...

dogleash 2y ago

Depends on the features you want.

chongli 2y ago

Racket Beginning Student [1] language. [1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/beginner.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/beginner.html

gorjusborg 2y ago
And its predecessor, Scheme, which is my vote.

unrealhoang 2y ago

for declaring function pointer? Any language with type after name : // c char (*(*x[3])())[5]; // golang var x [3]func() *[5]byte

sitzkrieg 2y ago

forth will contain as much gibberish as you put into it