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:39F73E41.C8EE143F at seebelow.org...
>     [snip]
> > > > Sounds like you have the makings of a "Python Guru Available For
> > > > Contract Work". <wink>
> > >
> > > I might become one, should I ever become unhappy with my current
> > > employer (or vice-versa:-).  Right now, the mission of bringing
> > > "3D to everyone, everywhere" keeps our mutual enthusiasm as high
> > > as it was over the last 12 years, so head-hunters need not apply.
> >
> > (Sounds like you didn't read the "Python Guru Available for Contract
> > Work" thread. ;-)
> 
> Right, I didn't.  I do have to read selectively.

Basically, it started with some guy bragging about all the marvelous and
amazing things he had done in programming.  Then, it devolved into some
off-color humor--as people made fun of the guy.

Like the people who responded to that thread, I guess I'm kindda
suspicious of people who brag about their amazing abilities and
accomplishments.  First, my experience has been that those who actually
accomplish the most tend to brag the least.  (Anybody remember hearing
Guido brag?  No!!!)  Second, my experience has been that those who brag
the most tend to have accomplished the least.  This seemed strange to me
at first, but it actually makes perfect sense: true accomplishments brag
for themselves, so no bragging needs to be done; however, for those who
have accomplished little, bragging tends to be used as a smokescreen to
hide their lack of accomplishment.  (I ran into a pathological example
of this about 5 years ago.)  The bragging usually impresses people at
first, but then one invariably discovers "the man behind the curtain". 
(FYI: That was from "The Wizard of Oz".)

But that being said, seriously: the considerable accomplishments you
listed are probably entirely accurate; the fact that you share them with
all of comp.lang.python probably defies my generalization above.

> > > > Just for curiosity, could you be a little more specific here?  Sure, C
> > > > has its several known pitfalls.  But those aside, what's so bad about
> > > > it's syntax overall?
> > >
> > > Apart from its various defects (quirks and flaws, as Dennis Ritchie,
> > > C's inventor, calls them), there's nothing much wrong with it.  (I
> > > have yet to meet anything that -- aparts from pitfalls, defects,
> > > quirks, flaws, etc -- has anything wrong with it... by definition
> > > of flaws, quirks, and so on).
> >
> > (I think you forgot "QED" or something. ;-)
> 
> Natural language is not really suitable for that.  Cfr Wittgenstein's
> heroic (but doomed to failure) attempts in the "Tractatus", on one
> hand, and all of his later works (particularly the Untersuchungen, of
> course) on the other.

(I think you forgot "QED" again. <wink>)

> > > > did Pascal ever need that bogus ":=" thing in the first place?
> > > > <<designed by a guy who didn't use it much>>
> > >
> > > I don't know why you think that Backus "didn't use much" the
> > > assignment statement at the end of the '50s -- I think he
> > > switched to functional programming only a good while later.
> >
> > I was thinking more of Nicholas Wirth, the inventor of Pascal (the
> > computer language, not the person. ;-)
> 
> Wirth used Pascal and Pascal-like languages in some excellent
> articles and texts.  I strongly recommend "Algorithms Plus
> Data Structures Equals Programs", for example, to anybody who
> is looking for a classic introduction to imperative programming
> along strict-and-statically-typed lines.
> 
> And I have news for you -- his typewriter (or fountain-pen, or
> goose-quill) was not ruined by the extra typing of := vs =, nor
> did his publisher go bankrupt because of horridly high printing
> costs.  The secret, you see, is that is very little extra ink
> in the two dots of that leading-colon, so it's really cheap.

The cost in typing is negligible.  The cost in comprehension is
exhorbitant.  After several years, I finally came to think of it as
"_is_ equal to", and that helped a little.

(To be fair, I must admit that I sometimes brag about my own poor
faculties. <wink>)

> So, Wirth had no motivation to change that particular facet of
> Algol.  Maybe there's a worldwide secret conspiracy of colon
> manufacturers behind it (the same cabal who bought off Guido
> to have him make the trailing-: in Python control statements
> mandatory, when it could well have been implied by the line
> end; notice that the manufacturers of _semi_-colons lost out
> there -- they consume more ink, after all).
> 
> > Actually, I think Backus was the guy who played "Mr. Howell" on
> > "Gilligan's Island".
> 
> Sorry, I'm a specialist in everything _except_ TV,

TV is one of the good things in life.  Live a little.  :-)

> of which
> I only know about a very few shows (Monty Python, Black Adder,
> Saturday Night Live back when Belushi was there, the Simpsons...
> i.e., the obvious stuff).  However, I suspect homonimy was at
> play, since Backus was probably slightly too engaged inventing
> programming languages, meta-syntax notations, techniques for
> compiling and optimizing, and such, to moonlight as a TV actor.

Just for the record, Backus also played "Mr. McGoo"--athough one can't
really say that his work there has the lasting significance of
"Gilligan's Island".

> > people-who-take-themselves-too-seriously-are-endless-fun-<wink>
> >    -ly y'rs,
> 
> Are they?  Sorry, I don't know any.

Obviously. <wink>

> I do know guys who miss
> the subtleties of deadpan humor -- you know, the type who'd
> be unable to follow Monty Python without the laugh-track, or
> equivalent "here-is-where-it's-funny" signaling devices, such
> as smilies, tags, and bogus adverbs -- they're easier to spot,
> as they often overburden their posts with such devices (like
> the laugh track on a doesn't-manage-to-be-funny TV comedy, I
> think the hope is to hide the unfunniness behind such signals,
> although, of course, it does fall flat).

Actually, it's not so much about pointing out jokes which one fears
would otherwise remain undiscovered, as it is about assuring one's poor
straight-man that the joke intends no offense.  In that context,
therefore, one should be quite liberal with them--especially with people
who take themselves too seriously. <nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more>
  
> When I feel nasty I
> do find some fun in them, although, more often, in my typical
> grandmotherly compassionate mood, I know they're just pathetic.

Pathos can be fun too.  (But as a Student of Comedy, you know
that--heck, I bet you can even laugh at Charlie Chaplin with the sound
turned down.)

people-like-me-need-a-12-step-program-(<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