Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:37:01 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <11aj5rt$3bd$1@reader2.panix.com> References: <119qf6l$2rmg3$1@dont-email.me> <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me> <11aivdn$3nvmh$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:37:01 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="3437"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:403044 In article <11aivdn$3nvmh$1@dont-email.me>, bart wrote: >On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > >Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? Yes. PHP. >If so, what would you do if it become amazingly popular and you were >obliged to deal with it in your work; would you change your mind, or >would you still think it was poor? Fortunately, I am not obliged to deal with PHP, but if I were, I suspect my opinion of it would go down, not up. Regardless, I think it fair to categorize it as, "amazingly popular." - Dan C.