Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 06:00:50 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <86sett88l9.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <875xrivrg0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829191404.887@kylheku.com> <86cylqw2f8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <871q2568vl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87cylo494u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20240831195350.785@kylheku.com> <86mskrrvco.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86sety9yd6.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86frpxaml1.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 15:00:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="97ef20b65758fbd99b7a73cba003feee"; logging-data="1693884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ykcrm3N+A/Jc5Qal0aBsbJTV8DKHzo7U=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JCPcV7J4Z26yKBTrXgSZd5HtOO4= sha1:2/SXAsesb7zvnLoHD26z4+bpjFg= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:388460 antispam@fricas.org writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Janis Papanagnou writes: >> >>> On 17.09.2024 15:57, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Janis Papanagnou writes: >>>> >>>>> On 01.09.2024 22:07, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [...] The most important purpose of >>>>>> the ISO C standard is to be read and understood by ordinary C >>>>>> developers, not just compiler writers. [...] >>>>> >>>>> Is that part of a preamble or rationale given in the C standard? >>>>> >>>>> That target audience would surely surprise me. Myself I've >>>>> programmed in quite some programming languages and never read a >>>>> standard document of the respective language, nor did I yet met >>>>> any programmer who have done so. All programmer folks I know used >>>>> text books to learn and look up things and specific documentation >>>>> that comes with the compiler or interpreter products. (This is of >>>>> course just a personal experience.) >>>>> >>>>> I've also worked a lot with standards documents in various areas >>>>> (mainly ISO and ITU-T standards but also some others). [..] >>>> >>>> My comment is only about the C standard, not any other standards >>>> documents. >>> >>> Yes, that was obvious. >>> >>> Are trying to say that the "C standard" is substantially different >>> with respect to "readability" to other standards? >> >> To other language reference documents - yes. > > Compared to ISO 10206 (Extended Pascal) I find C standard much > less readible. So there is difference, but in opposite direction > than you suggest. Main thing is that C standard is written in > "lawyerish" style, which is confusing to programmers. OTOH > ISO 10206 is written in precise techincal style, which is > easier. Of course, neither is a light reading. I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions. In any case I never claimed that the ISO C standard is the most readable language reference document ever written. Even if I were later to decide that the Extended Pascal standard is better, that doesn't contradict anything I said above.