3 ms·
It's unfortunate that we're stuck with syntax that so many people struggle to accurately decipher.
by fc417fc802 2y ago
It's unfortunate that we're stuck with syntax that so many people struggle to accurately decipher.
- userbinator 2y agoIt's unfortunate that so many people never read K&R. A very small yet readable book, written by the original authors of C, that very clearly covers the language and even presents a C program to parse the declarations.
- xigoi 2y agoIf you need a program to help you read C programs, that suggests a serious flaw in C.
- f1shy 2y agoYou do not need it. But is a clear and handy way to present the logic/algorithm, if you are learning C anyway. I would even say, that if C allows for a clear description of the procedure, clearer as plain text, it indicates how good and expressive C is…
- gf000 2y agoThere are books on hieroglyphs as well, but there is a good reason we don't use them as types in programming languages.
- masklinn 2y agoYou’re only “stuck” with it to the extent that you’re stuck with C(++). Free yourself from that and the rest follows.
- immibis 2y agoC++ is better, actually, because a template type has a straightforward syntax.
- tsimionescu 2y agoC++ template syntax exists in addition to all of the C type syntax. And it adds its own ugliness besides (such as knowing when you can say T vs having to say typename T). It's not like there is an array<int> or ptr<int> syntax that can replace int[] or int*.