Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #399616

Re: this girl calls c ugly

From cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: this girl calls c ugly
Date 2026-06-02 12:07 +0000
Organization PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID <10vmh2e$b44$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References <10v7b32$2u85v$1@dont-email.me> <10vjsg2$259m3$3@dont-email.me> <10vkk65$l8v$1@reader1.panix.com> <10vlvie$2ne3j$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <10vlvie$2ne3j$2@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 01/06/2026 20:48, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <10vjsg2$259m3$3@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2026 13:04, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <10vjdn8$22tgu$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/2026 19:11, Bart wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Actual examples of too many parentheses?
>>>>>
>
>[Snipping the LISP stuff - fun, but OT and not really relevant to the 
>thread branch.  And I have never used the language.]

Fair!

>>>> [snip]
>>>> I see code like this all the time; usually it comes from
>>>> hardware vendors (I take it this was from a BSP or something
>>>> similar?).  I often wonder about vendor programming standards
>>>> when I run across things like it.
>>>
>>> Yes, this was from a hardware vendor (who shall remain nameless to
>>> protect the guilty - not that I have found other vendors to be much
>>> better).  They have a tendency to be obsessed with MISRA, with sticking
>>> to C90, and with filling headers with huge Doxygen templates giving no
>>> information and obscuring the code.  (I'm fine with Doxygen comments
>>> that actually add useful information, but not a dozen lines repeating
>>> the names and types from a function signature.)
>> 
>> Yes.  I see all of this, and it mystifies me; I have seen how
>> excessive abstraction can lead to opaque code, but many times
>> hardware people go in the opposite direction, and one hardly
>> ever sees useful abstraction; for example, often the same code
>> sequence could be trivially extracted into a function, but it is
>> instead repeated multiple times, inline.
>
>Indeed.  There is just /so/ much that is done badly in these SDK's - I 
>am not going to go into details as it would take all day.  I get the 
>impression that software libraries are very much an afterthought for 
>most microcontroller design groups - I don't think they ever bother 
>talking to developers who will use them.  In fact, I don't think they 
>talk much to the software folks when designing the microcontrollers either.

I think that's exactly what happens: the uCtlr companies don't
have robust software development organizations, and it's seen as
a side-bag to their core business.  The same is true for the
bigger hardware vendors, as well (lookin' at you, Intel).  Cue
the famous story about Fred Brooks throwing Gene Amdahl out of
his office until the latter came with with a hardware design for
the IBM 360 with byte addressing and power of two widths for
primitive data types.

>Sometimes, however, they do have abstractions - sometimes multiple 
>layers of HALs ("Hardware Abstraction Layer"), drivers, interfaces, etc. 
>  Each layer has a completely different way of viewing things - one will 
>use #define'd constants for everything, another will use a struct with 
>30 fields passed as a pointer in order to turn a GPIO pin on or off, and 
>the next layer will use a macro TURN_GPIO_PIN_A14_ON.  When you have 
>figured out which API you are expected to use, toggling a GPIO leads to 
>a half-dozen nested calls (not including macros) up and down theses 
>stacks when all the hardware needs is a single write to a particular 
>register.  And if you are really lucky, a global HAL_LOCK_MUTEX is 
>acquired and released along the way.

Yes.  The way one boots an AMD server SoC, for instance,
requires shipping a bunch of binary data structures around to
little microcontrollers spread across a bunch of AXI buses, that
are then responsible for things like configuring PCIe links and
enumerating IO buses and so on.  The vendor code for doing this
is opaque, at best.  For example,
https://github.com/openSIL/openSIL/blob/turin_poc/xUSL/Nbio/Brh/NbioPcieComplexDataBrh.c
(and that's a cleaned-up version).

>[snip color mapping code]
>
>Yes, that would be vastly better.  (I would still prefer to have 
>different named types for colours in the different encoding schemes.)

I'll see your named types and raise you a bitfield struct.  The
shifting and masking is superfluous.

>>>> This is exactly the sort of thing that, as you point out, a
>>>> `static inline` function is far better suited for.  Some code
>>>> bases don't want to use them for a variety of reasons, usually
>>>> compatibility concerns with older code, compilers, or language
>>>> standards.  Some variants of Unix, for instance, worry about
>>>> header compatibility with C90 [and in some cases K&R C] code.
>>>
>>> Indeed.  But even if they don't want to use "inline", a static function
>>> is better - the compiler will do the inlining anyway (if it makes sense
>>> according to its heuristics).
>> 
>> Assuming the compiler they're working with is known to do so,
>> then I agree.
>
>If a compiler is not capable of inlining static functions without them 
>being labelled "inline", then you are unlikely to get efficient results 
>anyway.  (Or the user has not enabled optimisation, and again cannot 
>expect efficient results.)  I don't see the point in pandering to poorly 
>optimising compilers (including good compilers with optimisation 
>disabled) in order to produce marginally less big and slow code.  There 
>was a time when a good optimising compiler was a significant investment 
>and not always within the budget for a project, but such times are far 
>in the past.  I can understand that some developers are hamstrung by 
>daft C90 restrictions, but I have little sympathy for people wanting 
>good results from poor tools.
>
>(The exception, perhaps, is people who have to use Microchip development 
>tools.)

It's not just because the optimizer is bad or the developers are
obtuse.  Sometimes it's a deliberate decision to support
external tooling, like a debugger or tracing program or similar.
Some projects deliberately tolerate slower code for that.

Moreover, on large code bases, with long life spans, upgrading a
compiler is a significant investment.  Almost invariably the
code has UB somewhere (I work on a code base that has been
evolving since before ANSI C; out of about 11 million lines,
there's lots of code that can be considered "legacy" in it).
From a business standpoint, it's not worth the time or
engineering resources required to go find all of it and make it
strictly conforming; from a technical standpoint, it may not
always be possible to do so anyway (though other superset
standards, like POSIX, are another matter), and in other cases
the resulting obfuscation to meet much stricter demands of ISO C
has been deemed, rightly or wrongly, as simply not worth it.  It
may not ideal, but them's the breaks.

	- Dan C.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200
  Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 20:15 +0200
    Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 18:49 -0500
      Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 04:53 +0000
        Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 02:35 -0500
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:32 +0000
            Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 20:07 -0500
        Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 11:48 +0200
      Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0200
        Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 04:57 -0500
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:35 +0000
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:52 +0200
            Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 05:20 -0500
              Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-29 13:22 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:16 -0500
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 13:52 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-30 14:40 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 16:36 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 15:48 -0500
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:14 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 13:25 -0500
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:14 +0200
              Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:22 +0200
              Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 03:49 +0000
        Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 12:47 -0700
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:56 +0200
            Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 11:00 -0700
      Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 17:12 +0200
        Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 14:07 -0500
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:54 +0000
            Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 10:02 +0200
              Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 12:19 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:46 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 14:22 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 17:15 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-29 15:59 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:12 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:48 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:09 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:00 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:14 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:09 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:05 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:34 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:29 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 18:53 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:28 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 20:49 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:03 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 13:56 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:54 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:52 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 20:31 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 02:03 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 19:02 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:12 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-30 12:29 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 13:56 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:43 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:37 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 19:53 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:16 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:47 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:55 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-31 09:12 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:49 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 11:10 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:18 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:24 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 17:35 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 12:46 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:24 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 18:26 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:28 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 15:54 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:39 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:33 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:48 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-02 06:37 -0400
                Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 05:06 -0700
                Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:28 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:35 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 06:29 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 16:10 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:29 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 13:59 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 13:05 +0000
                Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:38 +0100
                Re: Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
                Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-03 22:30 +0000
                Re: Parentheses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 16:24 -0700
                Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 02:03 +0000
                Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 01:12 +0100
                Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 01:58 +0000
                [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:54 +0200
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0100
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 17:39 +0200
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 21:33 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 14:43 -0700
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-02 17:08 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 19:19 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:11 +0000
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:39 -0700
                Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-03 13:14 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:10 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:31 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:15 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 16:29 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:45 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 04:02 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 09:04 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 18:11 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:34 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 19:10 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:12 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:36 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:26 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 09:52 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:42 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:50 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:47 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:55 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:39 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 15:11 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 08:41 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 02:07 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:38 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:01 -0700
                It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:39 +0000
                Re: It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:42 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 11:46 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 11:09 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:25 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:20 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:12 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 04:16 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-01 15:23 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 16:06 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 23:24 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:35 +0200
                Operator precedence in other (non-C, but "C-like") languages (Was: something about a girl) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:36 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 11:04 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 14:04 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 18:48 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 21:04 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:17 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:09 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 12:07 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 14:37 +0200
                Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:06 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:11 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 16:08 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:32 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 17:12 -0700
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 14:07 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:10 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:18 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:17 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 21:47 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 15:57 -0400
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:18 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 01:26 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:25 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:01 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-31 00:29 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 10:59 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-01 00:33 +0000
                Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 02:26 +0100
                Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:24 +0200
          Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 08:09 +0200
            Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 04:15 -0500
              Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:58 +0200
                Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 01:04 -0500
            Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:20 +0000
              Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200

csiph-web