3 ms·

It hurts my eyes (more seriously, the Pascal family look lost vs the C one, it's a popularity thing) and from my understanding, it took too long to become truly

It hurts my eyes (more seriously, the Pascal family look lost vs the C one, it's a popularity thing) and from my understanding, it took too long to become truly usable in the FOSS world (a bit like CL).

kevlar700 2y ago
Better to hurt your eyes (which is nonsense unless a book hurts your eyes) than your brain. Optimised for the common operation of reading.
lproven 2y ago
> It hurts my eyes This is a common complaint I read, and I have never understood it. My eyes are not strong: I wear spectacles of about -6.5 dioptres. If text size is fairly small, it is REALLY difficult to distinguish (...) from {...} ... on large screensful of text. And [...] ... is not much more visible. Making that significant is terse, yes, but Sendmail is terse. Terseness is not an unambiguous virtue. Secondly, indentation: I learned 2 or 3 languages in the 1980s before I learned C, and it's a given that you indent opening and closing control structures to match. That's how it works: you structure blocks of code to show the hierarchies. But most curly-bracket language coders have their own weird schemes where the opening { is in a totally different column from the closing }. And they fight like alley cats about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentation_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentation_style ONLY the GNU style listed there is sane. I mean at least Allman and Horstmann styles are consistent. It is much MUCH easier to pick out BEGIN ... stuff... END ... than it is to try to pick out { and } in some random blasted column. And yet, all the fans squee at curly brackets. As smdiehl wisely said: « C syntax is magical programmer catnip. You sprinkle it on anything and it suddenly becomes "practical" and "readable". » https://x.com/smdiehl/status/855827759872045056 https://x.com/smdiehl/status/855827759872045056 I never got it. It's obfuscatory. It is famed for being write-only. There's a competition to write the least-readable C! C style hurts my eyes. Pascal and Ada are vastly more readable.
- secondcoming 2y ago
  Indentation is readability thing. Curly braces are about scope.
  - lproven 2y ago
    Well obviously! That is not terribly germane here, IMHO.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  If curly braces are not visible enough, you can also use <% %>. Still less of an eyesore than BEGIN and END.
  - masfuerte 2y ago
    What language is that?
    - zozbot234 2y ago
      It's just C/C++ syntax.
      - masfuerte 2y ago
        Thanks. I was aware of the trigraphs but the digraphs had passed me by.
  - lproven 2y ago
    I completely disagree. I could not disagree more. A pair of readable words, words that of different lengths so are easily distinguishable without reading them characer-by-character, are far more legible than a pair of line-noise characters -- especially if those characters on their own have wildly different meanings in the language, and -- to make matters even worse -- are also extremely close to the characters for code comments! Look, to spell this out: You have your own opinion and that is fine. You are perfectly entitled to it. But you are making out that your preference is some global truth, and I think you need to realise that what is easier or clearer for you is in fact less clear and much LESS readable for other people. Those words were chosen for good reasons and have persisted through whole generations of programming languages for something like half a century, and there are good reasons for this. The C designers chose things shorter and easier to type and that is their privilege. I personally, and thousands of others, dislike their choice and prefer Wirth's. Nobody is absolutely objectively right or wrong here. The point is that there are good reasons for both choices, and nobody -- including me -- gets to go and say one is better and clearer and the other is worse. What you like, I hate. What I like, you hate. But we both have our reasons. I think mine are good reasons. Presumably you think yours are, although you haven't explained them. You just assert them as obvious global truths. They are not.

kevlar700 2y ago

Better to hurt your eyes (which is nonsense unless a book hurts your eyes) than your brain. Optimised for the common operation of reading.

lproven 2y ago

> It hurts my eyes This is a common complaint I read, and I have never understood it. My eyes are not strong: I wear spectacles of about -6.5 dioptres. If text size is fairly small, it is REALLY difficult to distinguish (...) from {...} ... on large screensful of text. And [...] ... is not much more visible. Making that significant is terse, yes, but Sendmail is terse. Terseness is not an unambiguous virtue. Secondly, indentation: I learned 2 or 3 languages in the 1980s before I learned C, and it's a given that you indent opening and closing control structures to match. That's how it works: you structure blocks of code to show the hierarchies. But most curly-bracket language coders have their own weird schemes where the opening { is in a totally different column from the closing }. And they fight like alley cats about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentation_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentation_style ONLY the GNU style listed there is sane. I mean at least Allman and Horstmann styles are consistent. It is much MUCH easier to pick out BEGIN ... stuff... END ... than it is to try to pick out { and } in some random blasted column. And yet, all the fans squee at curly brackets. As smdiehl wisely said: « C syntax is magical programmer catnip. You sprinkle it on anything and it suddenly becomes "practical" and "readable". » https://x.com/smdiehl/status/855827759872045056 https://x.com/smdiehl/status/855827759872045056 I never got it. It's obfuscatory. It is famed for being write-only. There's a competition to write the least-readable C! C style hurts my eyes. Pascal and Ada are vastly more readable.

secondcoming 2y ago
Indentation is readability thing. Curly braces are about scope.
- lproven 2y ago
  Well obviously! That is not terribly germane here, IMHO.
zozbot234 2y ago
If curly braces are not visible enough, you can also use <% %>. Still less of an eyesore than BEGIN and END.
- masfuerte 2y ago
  What language is that?
  - zozbot234 2y ago
    It's just C/C++ syntax.
    - masfuerte 2y ago
      Thanks. I was aware of the trigraphs but the digraphs had passed me by.
- lproven 2y ago
  I completely disagree. I could not disagree more. A pair of readable words, words that of different lengths so are easily distinguishable without reading them characer-by-character, are far more legible than a pair of line-noise characters -- especially if those characters on their own have wildly different meanings in the language, and -- to make matters even worse -- are also extremely close to the characters for code comments! Look, to spell this out: You have your own opinion and that is fine. You are perfectly entitled to it. But you are making out that your preference is some global truth, and I think you need to realise that what is easier or clearer for you is in fact less clear and much LESS readable for other people. Those words were chosen for good reasons and have persisted through whole generations of programming languages for something like half a century, and there are good reasons for this. The C designers chose things shorter and easier to type and that is their privilege. I personally, and thousands of others, dislike their choice and prefer Wirth's. Nobody is absolutely objectively right or wrong here. The point is that there are good reasons for both choices, and nobody -- including me -- gets to go and say one is better and clearer and the other is worse. What you like, I hate. What I like, you hate. But we both have our reasons. I think mine are good reasons. Presumably you think yours are, although you haven't explained them. You just assert them as obvious global truths. They are not.