Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: New and improved version of cdecl Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 14:59:05 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 70 Message-ID: <87zf9azo0m.fsf@example.invalid> References: <87bjlyobts.fsf@example.invalid> <10dbvqs$12d0f$1@dont-email.me> <10dd0fj$1jbcv$1@dont-email.me> <87jz0l2pal.fsf@example.invalid> <10dei5s$28h93$1@dont-email.me> <8734792h4y.fsf@example.invalid> <10dfusd$2k0q4$1@dont-email.me> <10dgdc7$2of3m$1@dont-email.me> <10dghp5$2q30g$1@dont-email.me> <87h5vo1276.fsf@example.invalid> <10dgtvv$2tkdu$1@dont-email.me> <10dkesj$3r64j$1@dont-email.me> <10dl0g9$3venf$1@dont-email.me> <10dmk77$egg1$1@dont-email.me> <10dnprf$qmrg$1@dont-email.me> <10dnsm7$rjo7$1@dont-email.me> <10do23k$u17l$1@dont-email.me> <10dpa4q$1ghgu$1@dont-email.me> <10dq8lr$1tm90$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 21:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="488eefec226f97f8133c21c3b37ec947"; logging-data="2608933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18L2A/m6PcSyc1yQPSqhZUl" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:foFTYKqPkPfhRydH1WkEfK8R6WA= sha1:BDCdFk9d70rMdesQGSych5iPIys= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:394916 bart writes: > On 28/10/2025 02:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 27.10.2025 16:11, bart wrote: [...] >>> If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic languages >> Huh? - Certainly not. > > *I* would! That's why I made my scripting languages as fast and > capable as possible, so they could be used for more tasks. > > However, if I dare to suggest that even one other person in the world > might also have the same desire, you'd say that I can't possibly know > that. > > And yet here you are: you say 'certainly not'. Obviously *you* know > everyone else's mindset! I'll give this one more try. This kind of thing makes it difficult to communicate with you. In this particular instances, you wrote that "we'd **all** be using easy dynamic languages" (emphasis added). Janis replied "Certainly not." -- meaning that we would not **all** be using easy dynamic languages. Janis is correct if there are only a few people, or even one person, who would not use easy dynamic languages. In reply to that, you wrote that **you** would use such languages -- which is fine and dandy, but it doesn't refute what Janis wrote. Nobody at any time claimed that *nobody* would use easy dynamic languages. Obviously some people do and some people don't. If speed were not an issue, that would still be the case, though it would likely change the numbers. (There are valid reasons other than speed to use non-dynamic languages.) Are you with me so far? You then wrote: However, if I dare to suggest that even one other person in the world might also have the same desire, you'd say that I can't possibly know that. That's wrong. I'll assume it was an honest mistake. If you suggested that even one other person might also have the same desire, I don't think anyone would dispute it. *Of course* there are plenty of people who want to use dynamic languages, and there would be more if speed were not an issue. As you have done before, you make incorrect assumptions about other people's thoughts and motives. > And yet here you are: you say 'certainly not'. Obviously *you* know > everyone else's mindset! The "certainly not" was in response to your claim that we would ALL be using dynamic languages, a claim that was at best hyberbole. Nobody has claimed to know everyone else's mindset. You misunderstood what Janis wrote. It happens to all of us. You just need to be aware that what Janis wrote was not what you thought Janis wrote, and you have reacted to something nobody said -- and not for the first time. This post is likely to be a waste of time, but I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */