C's syntax (was Re: Python Formatted C Converter (PfCC))

[Grant Griffin]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> 
> "Grant Griffin" <not.this at seebelow.org> wrote in message
> news:39FE7EC7.89DC9747 at seebelow.org...
>     [snip]
> > I hope you realize the non-applicability of your example.  (If not, I
> 
> No: it's a close analogy.  If somebody _in good faith_ was truly
> unable to spot some of the obvious defects in C's syntax (this does
> not apply to you, see later), then clearly his or her command of
> it, and experience using and teaching it, would have to be quite
> scarce -- just like, I suspect, the Italian knowledge of the
> average reader of this newsgroup.

The question was never what _we_ thought were C's shortcomings: we each
have an opinion on that.  The question was what _you_ thought were C's
shortcomings (beyond the obvious ones).  (Actually, be flattered that
your opinion is so interesting to me that I take the trouble to
repeatedly solicit you for it. ;-)

> > think there's a good chance the rest of us do. <wink>)  If, instead of
> 
> If someone (again, someone _in good faith_) truly could not see

Resorting to "in good faith" is a loaded argument.  (Obviously, you're
not arguing in good faith. <wink>)  Give me facts please, Counselor.

> the analogy's full applicability, I trust they now can.  And I've
> seen posts from others, in direct answer to yours, clearly defending
> the relevance of my displaying my qualifications regarding C, in
> defense to baseless insinuations hinging on "not liking it" -- in
> a far more concise way than is my wont (you'll notice I _never_
> claim concision as one of my strong points).
> 
> > tangentializing about Italian,
> 
> Not a 'tangent' (quite differently from your repeated attempts at
> introducing meta-themes about 'bragging'...), but rather a strict
> analogy.

(I love that "meta-themes" kindda talk!  Very impressive! <wink>)

> 
> > you were to make any well-reasoned and
> > insightful points about failings in C's syntax (any at all: honestly, we
> > get more curious each time you dodge the question!) then there's a very
> 
> Far from "dodging the question", I have repeatedly answered it, making
> several "points about failing in C's syntax".  See, for example:
> 
> http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685615011
> http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685727921

Maybe later, when I get to a faster connection. ;-)

> You replied to the latter message, for example, completely failing
> to answer any of the points I had raised, but rather reiterating the
> feeble attempts at humour that appear to be your hallmark,

Well, I'm glad _somebody_ finally noticed!!!

> as well
> as advancing your first attempt to sidetrack the discussion into a
> metadiscussion about 'bragging'.  That specific attempt having
> failed, you insisted in that purpose, apparently trying to drive the
> theme *away* from C syntax; and now, 6 days later, you claim I "dodge
> the question" of specific points on C's syntax?!  It's been a while
> since I stopped crediting you with being in good faith

Now there you go again with that "good faith" stuff. ;-)

> -- I just
> hope your obvious dishonesty

Now _that's_ not very nice, Alex...

But I will "turn the other cheek" and say some nice things about you: I
think you're a 100.0% honest, straight-forward, forthright guy, who
knows exactly what he's talking about, and communicates that very
clearly.

(Or am I just being dishonest again? <wink>)

> can become as clear to other readers
> as it is to me (what is your motive, I could not care less about;
> like any other culprit of wilful misbehaviour, you're surely quite
> able to rationalize some excellent-to-yourself justification; at
> this point, though, it's only _other_ readers, people of good faith,
> that are of any interest to me).

Actually, I'm sad to say that this is driven by a small character flaw
of mine.  You see, I have an irresistable compulsion to pop the balloons
of The Pompous.  I describe this a character flaw because, in the big
scheme of things, it really doesn't accomplish anything: The Pompous
remain pompous.  So objectivity speaking, it would be much better simply
to let the pompous blow up their balloons of pompousity however they
wish--why not just let them have their little fun?

Of course, Usenet tends to attract The Pompous, so by participating in
Usenet I end up popping balloons as a side effect of my
otherwise-harmless activity.  That's why I need a 12-step program of
some kind.  I can just here it now:

   Grant: "Hello, my name is Grant, and I like to pop people's balloons"
   Fellow Balloon-Poppers: "Hello, Grant."

> I don't claim my points are 'well-reasoned and insightful', I claim,
> rather, that they are _completely obvious_ to any sensible person.

Again: a loaded argument.

It's _completely obvious_ to any sensible person that the Earth is flat,
and that the sun revolves around the Earth.  (Pretty convincing, eh?)

> Dennis Ritchie, inventor of C, an _eminently_ sensible person, does
> NOT try to 'defend' many of these peculiarities of C's syntax -- he
> accepts they're flaws, and _explains_ the historical accidents and
> mistakes that ['thanks' to the inevitable need of keeping backwards
> compatibility] led to such flaws being in the language's syntax.

Yes, I've read that.  By explaining his point of view in an egoless,
logical, detailed, fact-based way, he makes arguments which "any
sensible person" would find very compelling.  (In fact, I can recommend
that arguing technique to you. <wink>)

> 
> > good chance that most everyone here would understand (if not agree.)
> > The reason is that nearly all of us here speak Italian...er, I
> > mean..."C".
> 
> So, to repeat one example, you claim to be SO deliriously happy that
>     if(a&3==3)

I remember making no such claim.

You're making a little progress by arguing with some facts, but it's
important that they be _real_ facts!

> does not test whether a has both lowest bits set, but just the
> _single_ lowest bit, that you can't even *understand* somebody
> (e.g., Dennis Ritchie -- or, me) considering this aspect of C's
> syntax a DEFECT...?
> 
> > p.s.  I'm really impressed with that stuff about co-authoring with a
> > prominent Italian linguist, but I'm still gonna say that when I helped
> > Al Gore invent the Internet, that was even cooler.  <wink>
> 
> Please see, e.g., the Korpuslinguistik at:
> http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/PERSONAL/Burr/corpus/biblio.htm
> 
> Your reference for your contribution to Mr Gore's "invention"...?

It was just a joke, Alex.

what-part-of-"<wink>"-don't-you-understand?-<wink>-ly y'rs,

=g2
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation	      http://www.iowegian.com