Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #402647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 423 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 11:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-03 18:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:24 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:31 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-04 10:23 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 12:18 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 16:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 16:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 18:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 22:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 22:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 21:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 00:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 09:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 17:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 23:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 01:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 04:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-08 04:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-08 12:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 09:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 13:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 16:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 18:12 +0000
[OT] substances (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:41 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:43 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 13:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 06:07 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 00:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:20 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-05 06:24 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 11:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:22 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:26 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 00:25 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 01:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 11:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 14:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:34 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:58 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 05:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 11:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 17:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 19:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-12 07:01 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 16:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:29 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:29 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 22:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:09 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-11 10:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-11 01:58 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 01:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 01:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:34 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:52 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 20:47 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 22:38 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 11:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:50 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Bob Duff <invalid@invalid.com> - 2026-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 05:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 18:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 02:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 12:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-19 23:41 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 19:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 14:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:26 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 15:46 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 22:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 12:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 14:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 01:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:24 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:26 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:44 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 22:35 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 00:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 05:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 19:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.com> - 2026-10-14 11:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 03:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 02:05 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 11:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403213 |
On 16/10/2026 13:40, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11arjmc$2qid7$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > Has it truly > never occurred to you that many other people just don't consider > your syntax significantly cleaner, or more productive? So why is this style of syntax popular within scripting languages? (Lua, Julia, Ruby...) Those are considered more productive. > Perhaps people dismiss what you say because, despite your > self-aggrandizing words, you've shown that you don't actually > know C very well, See the type syntax example below. How well do you need to know a language to see that that is just effing crazy? This is supposed to be a HLL, not a puzzle that needs to be solved or decoded via algorithms or employing tools! > For someone who claims to want to discuss C objectively, you > sure do make a lot of subjective statements. Concerning type declaration syntax, lots of people including the C creators agree that it was misguided. If lots of people agree, is that still being subjective? This is the example I think used in K&R: char *(*(**foo [][8])())[]; Most would consider this gobbledygook even if you know the rules. It is atrocious syntax. And what's 'foo' doing in the middle of it! I think being defensive about it is being subjective, as you demonstrate here: >> [snip; don't care] That is pretty much the attitude here in a nutshell. What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful. If DMR had instead produced a language that looked like mine (say like one of the Algols), and I came along in 2026 and proposed a syntax that looked like the above, what do you think the response would be? I would rightly be laughed out of the forum. So being 'objective' means disregarding history and widespread adoption. The latter doesn't make the language better, just more tolerated, with more effort put into tools to make it practical to use (with a nice sideline in teaching all its ins and outs). Anyway, to me, pretty much the whole of C looked as badly and crudely put together as that, when I first came across it in 1982. My background had been with quite different languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11audde$3oci5$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403228 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that
> doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful.
NOBODY THINKS C'S SYNTAX IS WONDERFUL.
We surrender. You win. Stop fighting.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11avl11$poq2$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #403230 |
In article <11audde$3oci5$1@kst.eternal-september.org>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>[...]
>> What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that
>> doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful.
>
>NOBODY THINKS C'S SYNTAX IS WONDERFUL.
The funny thing is: I actually do.
I may be the only person here who actually thinks the syntax of C's
"switch" statement is just fine. Once you realize that it *is* more of a
computed goto rather than a high level alternation construct like you'd
find in a real high level language (C is *not* a high level language; it is
properly referred to as a "mid level" language).
Note that the underlying issue here is easily dealt with if you do both of
the following:
a) Enable the warning in your compiler that warns about (unannotated)
fallthrough.
and
b) Always put a comment when you intentionally do fallthrough.
This issue is kind of similar to the old:
if (a = b) ...
thing - which really was a problem - right up until compilers started
warning about it. Now that all compilers warn if you do that, it is no
longer a live issue, but people still bring it up occasionally.
FWIW, to take another popular whipping boy of C, I also actually like the
variable declaration syntax - which many people like to criticize as
"backwards" or "inside out". Once you get used to it, it makes perfect
sense (to me, anyway). I have no problem with a declaration like:
int i,j,*ip,arr[10],foo(int bar);
Some would say that declares lots of different types of objects, but I
think of them all as ints (which is what the declaration is telling us).
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4-ish
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Seneca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avolp$61gp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403233 |
On 17/10/2026 12:09, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <11audde$3oci5$1@kst.eternal-september.org>,
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that
>>> doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful.
>>
>> NOBODY THINKS C'S SYNTAX IS WONDERFUL.
>
> The funny thing is: I actually do.
>
> I may be the only person here who actually thinks the syntax of C's
> "switch" statement is just fine. Once you realize that it *is* more of a
> computed goto
Then maybe the syntax for it should have been:
goto (x) {}
instead of:
switch (x) {}
That would not clash with 'goto label', nor the 'goto *(x)' of gnu C.
It would make it clearer that this is a cruder construct than 'switch'
pretends to be, AND it saves a keyword!
That saving could have gone towards giving switch-break its own keyword
instead of having to share 'break' with loops (because there was
apparently a shortage of keywords in 1972).
That was always going to clash at some point, and it does.
> sense (to me, anyway). I have no problem with a declaration like:
>
> int i,j,*ip,arr[10],foo(int bar);
>
> Some would say that declares lots of different types of objects, but I
> think of them all as ints (which is what the declaration is telling us).
It's taking a bunch of unrelated types of arbitrary complexity, but
because they all end with a type T when expressed in LTR form, they all
belong together?
That doesn't work: i, ip, arr, foo all have different types.
They only have the same types when fully dereferenced, indexed or
called, when written as i, *ip, arr[i], foo(i). This is NOT when happens
within the declaration, and it might not happen when they appear in
expressions either.
It's just confusing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11avse9$3pvda$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403233 |
On 2026-10-17 13:09, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <11audde$3oci5$1@kst.eternal-september.org>, > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that >>> doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful. >> >> NOBODY THINKS C'S SYNTAX IS WONDERFUL. > > The funny thing is: I actually do. Hah! - That's the touche when someone formulates generalizing statements about "all people" or about "nobody". :-) That said; I'd anyway never expected anyone to have chosen the attribute "wonderful", though (which was the word used here). But I also think that what Keith wanted to say was that "nobody has *said* - before your post - that C's syntax is wonderful" (in reply to bart's typical wrong imputations and hallucinations what others would have implied by some [unrelated] statement). > ['switch' topic - snipped] > ["if (a = b)" topic - snipped] > > FWIW, to take another popular whipping boy of C, I also actually like the > variable declaration syntax - (I'm reading that as "declaration syntax", i.e. without "variable".) > which many people like to criticize as > "backwards" or "inside out". Once you get used to it, it makes perfect > sense (to me, anyway). [...] But isn't that exactly the point, that you need to "get used" to something, which makes it appear as a "bad" design decision to others. (I certainly got used to many things in life, but some I then just try to avoid.) And of course "it makes sense"; if you can formally describe it - and programming language syntaxes have that property - it makes sense. Is it a "good" (or even a "wonderful") design? - I don't think so. YMMV. I like some of the programming-idioms that "C" made popular, but its syntax - and specifically that convoluted declaration syntax - is certainly not amongst them. (Or requiring 'typedef' workarounds to make some of the less-trivial declarations manageable and the code significantly better readable.) We can observe that if one spent a lot time in some context, and is used to it, and at some point even masters it, he might not be considering it as negative as someone who is more of a wanderer between worlds, for whom the advantages and disadvantages of the worlds might be more obvious. - And all those hypes... Oh! - I just noticed I'm digressing. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86cxt8pcia.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403230 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > >> What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that >> doesn't magically make the syntax wonderful. > > NOBODY THINKS C'S SYNTAX IS WONDERFUL. > > We surrender. You win. Stop fighting. If you would stop trying to engage with bart you wouldn't get so frustrated. And everyone would be happier. (It would be even nicer if other people would follow this advice too... hint hint hint). Incidentally I don't think C's declaration is wonderful, but I don't mind it either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aupfl$3ul$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403228 |
In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 16/10/2026 13:40, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11arjmc$2qid7$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> Has it truly >> never occurred to you that many other people just don't consider >> your syntax significantly cleaner, or more productive? > >So why is this style of syntax popular within scripting languages? (Lua, >Julia, Ruby...) > >Those are considered more productive. ...and you think that's because of the syntax, and not the high level nature of those languages? Wow. >> Perhaps people dismiss what you say because, despite your >> self-aggrandizing words, you've shown that you don't actually >> know C very well, > >See the type syntax example below. How well do you need to know a >language to see that that is just effing crazy? This is supposed to be a >HLL, not a puzzle that needs to be solved or decoded via algorithms or >employing tools! Yes, the syntax is pretty gnarly; Dennis Ritchie even said as much. Fixed in Go and Rust, but also, I doubt you've ever in your life had a variable of type array of array of length 8 of a pointer to a pointer to a function returning an array of pointers to char. Finding the most ridiculous example you can is not really evidence of anything besides your weird obsession with finding abstruse corner cases and holding them up as reasons to dislike C. >> For someone who claims to want to discuss C objectively, you >> sure do make a lot of subjective statements. > >Concerning type declaration syntax, lots of people including the C >creators agree that it was misguided. Yup. But stupid examples are just stupid. >If lots of people agree, is that still being subjective? This is the >example I think used in K&R: > > char *(*(**foo [][8])())[]; > >Most would consider this gobbledygook even if you know the rules. It is >atrocious syntax. And what's 'foo' doing in the middle of it! Yup. That's awful. >I think being defensive about it is being subjective, as you demonstrate >here: > > >> [snip; don't care] I fail to see how me not caring about your silly examples is being defensive about C. It says nothing about what I think about C one way or the other; it only says I think your arguments are poorly grounded. >That is pretty much the attitude here in a nutshell. > >What's often stated also is how successful C has been, but that doesn't >magically make the syntax wonderful. No one is claiming that C's popularity implies it's a "good" language, however you'd like to define that. There are useful properties that come with using it, including a large ecosystem of libraries and tools, huge number of programmers who know it, lots of high-quality references, and so on. But again, that doesn't mean that C is good, just that we can leverage it's popularity _usefully_. >If DMR had instead produced a language that looked like mine (say like >one of the Algols), and I came along in 2026 and proposed a syntax that >looked like the above, what do you think the response would be? But he didn't, and you didn't, so this is a meaningless historical, "what if?" >I would rightly be laughed out of the forum. Bruh...I hate to break it to you, but.... >So being 'objective' means disregarding history and widespread adoption. Well, no...both of those are factors in choosing a language or not. We can discuss the semantics of the language, it's syntax, etc; but we can also discuss tooling, engineering resources availability (can you find programmers who know C? More like, can you find programmers who _don't_ know C, amirite?), library and platform support, and so on. >The latter doesn't make the language better, just more tolerated, with >more effort put into tools to make it practical to use (with a nice >sideline in teaching all its ins and outs). This I can almost get behind, but you miss the forest for the trees. All those resources? They exist; we can leverage them. For BartLang? Not so much. Is C a good language? Meh, it's not the worst, but far from the best I've seen. Was it a bad language in 1972, when it was targeting a PDP-11/20? No, it was pretty decent for that era. Did it do all the stuff that fancy languages with advanced compilers that ran on big machines could do? No. Did it need to? Also no. >Anyway, to me, pretty much the whole of C looked as badly and crudely >put together as that, when I first came across it in 1982. My background >had been with quite different languages. Yup. Good for you. So why do you keep posting here? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avmfb$55rt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403232 |
On 17/10/2026 04:19, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> Those are considered more productive. > > ...and you think that's because of the syntax, and not the high > level nature of those languages? It's a combination. > Yes, the syntax is pretty gnarly; Dennis Ritchie even said as > much. Fixed in Go and Rust, but also, I doubt you've ever in > your life had a variable of type array of array of length 8 of > a pointer to a pointer to a function returning an array of > pointers to char. Finding the most ridiculous example you can > is not really evidence of anything besides your weird obsession That was the first one I saw online next to a quote from K&R and I assumed it was from the book. In fact the example from the book is this: char (*(*x())[])() I've no idea what the means either. The point is not that the examples are ridiculous, but that they are hard to convert to and from LTR form which is how we think. With LTR syntax it becomes utterly trivial to read or write them, no matter how complex. (There's a tool called CDECL that translates types from C syntax to LTR English or vice versa. It calls the C versions 'gibberish'. This is a real thing!) > with finding abstruse corner cases and holding them up as > reasons to dislike C. The first example I gave was the simplest form of function pointer, where the syntax is 'void(*)(void)'. Hardly a corner case, and it rapidly goes downhill. If meeting C for the first time, that does not bode well. If the designers did not care about this, that does not inspire confidence in the rest of the language. >> If DMR had instead produced a language that looked like mine (say like >> one of the Algols), and I came along in 2026 and proposed a syntax that >> looked like the above, what do you think the response would be? > > But he didn't, and you didn't, so this is a meaningless > historical, "what if?" You don't get the point. If C had used LTR type syntax and somebody proposed using inside-out back-and-forth syntax like 'void(*)(void)', they'd think they were having a laugh, as it would be ridiculous. But this is exactly what I think about it anyway, no matter that 100 million programs have battled with it for 50 years. > >> So being 'objective' means disregarding history and widespread adoption. > > Well, no...both of those are factors in choosing a language or > not. We can discuss the semantics of the language, it's syntax, > etc; but we can also discuss tooling, engineering resources > availability (can you find programmers who know C? More like, > can you find programmers who _don't_ know C, amirite?), library > and platform support, and so on. Yes, this is my point; it is tolerated, and people learn to work with it. But how much extra effort has been expended, compared if they'd tried a bit harder to get a better language at the start? Or even during its first decade. > Is C a good language? Meh, it's not the worst, but far from the > best I've seen. Was it a bad language in 1972, when it was > targeting a PDP-11/20? No, it was pretty decent for that era. Disagree. > Did it do all the stuff that fancy languages with advanced > compilers that ran on big machines could do? No. Did it need > to? Also no. I think C was first created for PDP7 with 4K words, then moved to PDP11 (don't know the spec). My first language was created nearly a decade later on a /homemade/ microprocessor system with 32KB, but no viable storage. So compiler binary and data, editor, program source code, binary and data all had to reside in memory at the same time. That crude language had 'print x' and loops that looked like 'for i:=a to b do'. It also had a 'byte' type (ie. u8). A year or two later, with 64KB and storage, it was more full-featured. It was a viable and practical alternative to C which I had looked at, and dismissed. Fun fact: my copy of K&R1 cost me £12. My first Z80 processor cost £10. My point is you can't excuse C being what it is due to hardware limitations. I used PDP11 quite a bit (/34) and that had a decent Fortran implementation. My own stuff was done in my spare time for no extra pay, on 8-bit machines I helped develop for my company, without the backing of Bell Labs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b0cvs$skc$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403234 |
In article <11avmfb$55rt$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 17/10/2026 04:19, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> Those are considered more productive. >> >> ...and you think that's because of the syntax, and not the high >> level nature of those languages? > >It's a combination. Riiiight. C++ is widely considered "more productive" than C, and yet shares most of the syntactic warts you complain about so readily. >> Yes, the syntax is pretty gnarly; Dennis Ritchie even said as >> much. Fixed in Go and Rust, but also, I doubt you've ever in >> your life had a variable of type array of array of length 8 of >> a pointer to a pointer to a function returning an array of >> pointers to char. Finding the most ridiculous example you can >> is not really evidence of anything besides your weird obsession > >That was the first one I saw online next to a quote from K&R and I >assumed it was from the book. In fact the example from the book is this: > > char (*(*x())[])() > >I've no idea what the means either. The point is not that the examples >are ridiculous, but that they are hard to convert to and from LTR form >which is how we think. With LTR syntax it becomes utterly trivial to >read or write them, no matter how complex. > >(There's a tool called CDECL that translates types from C syntax to LTR >English or vice versa. It calls the C versions 'gibberish'. This is a >real thing!) Yes. C's declaration syntax is famously abstruse; film at 11. >> with finding abstruse corner cases and holding them up as >> reasons to dislike C. > >The first example I gave was the simplest form of function pointer, >where the syntax is 'void(*)(void)'. Hardly a corner case, and it >rapidly goes downhill. Ok. >If meeting C for the first time, that does not bode well. If the >designers did not care about this, that does not inspire confidence in >the rest of the language. Ok. >>> If DMR had instead produced a language that looked like mine (say like >>> one of the Algols), and I came along in 2026 and proposed a syntax that >>> looked like the above, what do you think the response would be? >> >> But he didn't, and you didn't, so this is a meaningless >> historical, "what if?" > >You don't get the point. There does not appear to be one. >If C had used LTR type syntax and somebody >proposed using inside-out back-and-forth syntax like 'void(*)(void)', >they'd think they were having a laugh, as it would be ridiculous. Unknowable. >But this is exactly what I think about it anyway, no matter that 100 >million programs have battled with it for 50 years. Irrelevant. >>> So being 'objective' means disregarding history and widespread adoption. >> >> Well, no...both of those are factors in choosing a language or >> not. We can discuss the semantics of the language, it's syntax, >> etc; but we can also discuss tooling, engineering resources >> availability (can you find programmers who know C? More like, >> can you find programmers who _don't_ know C, amirite?), library >> and platform support, and so on. > >Yes, this is my point; it is tolerated, and people learn to work with >it. But how much extra effort has been expended, compared if they'd >tried a bit harder to get a better language at the start? Or even during >its first decade. Then your point is minor at best. Here's a thought experiment: suppose I suddenly came to my senses and agreed with everything you say: I'm willing to totally toss out C and adopt Bart's language yesterday. Where do I get a compiler? What learning resources exist? Oh, and I need it to generate code for an ARM Cortex-M0 part; does it do that? I also need RV64GC and x86_64 and probably aarch64, too. Might want to throw in Xtensa while we're at it: does your compiler do all of that? What if I need a debugger? Oh, and I need to use crypto libraries that are supplied from a vendor; they use the C ABI. What's the inter-op story like? >> Is C a good language? Meh, it's not the worst, but far from the >> best I've seen. Was it a bad language in 1972, when it was >> targeting a PDP-11/20? No, it was pretty decent for that era. > >Disagree. Really, the entire thread could be summed up in that one word, and it would save everyone a lot of time. >> Did it do all the stuff that fancy languages with advanced >> compilers that ran on big machines could do? No. Did it need >> to? Also no. > >I think C was first created for PDP7 with 4K words, then moved to PDP11 >(don't know the spec). No. That was B; the PDP-7 was an 18-bit word-oriented machine, and was archaic even in 1968 when they started using it. C was done on the PDP-11. An early cross-compilation environment on a GE-635 computer also existed, but the primary work on the language was on the 11/20 running Unix. You know, all of this is in Dennis Ritchie's C history paper, presented at SIGPLAN's HOPL-II, which is online. If you could get over yourself for like 20 minutes you could read it, and then not talk out your ass about history. https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist.html I suspect your general factual resistance is one of the several reasons so few people around here take you or your language seriously. >[snip] >My point is you can't excuse C being what it is due to hardware limitations. > >I used PDP11 quite a bit (/34) and that had a decent Fortran implementation. (A very different machine from an 11/20.) >My own stuff was done in my spare time for no extra pay, on 8-bit >machines I helped develop for my company, without the backing of Bell Labs. Good for you. Totally irrelevant to the history of C. Let me forestall the inevitable: you are going to reply and just repeat the same things over again. I don't care. None of this is an objective discussion of C; and it really comes across as you just seeking affirmation, which is genuinely sad. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403245 |
On 17/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11avmfb$55rt$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 17/10/2026 04:19, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> Those are considered more productive. >>> >>> ...and you think that's because of the syntax, and not the high >>> level nature of those languages? >> >> It's a combination. > > Riiiight. So greatly simplifying syntax, all other things being equal, does not increase productivity at all? Gotcha. > Yes. C's declaration syntax is famously abstruse; film at 11. And ... that's it? Just accept it? How about doing something about it! I'm angry because to me C was so unusable that I had to create and maintain my own products over decades. Then I later found that C had insinuated itself into every API and every open source product I wanted to use. Even ABIs, supposedly language-neutral, pay deference to it. Even as a compiler target, there was no other choice. So I ended having to deal with it anyway, but thankfully avoided have to write it. >> If C had used LTR type syntax and somebody >> proposed using inside-out back-and-forth syntax like 'void(*)(void)', >> they'd think they were having a laugh, as it would be ridiculous. > > Unknowable. You do know; you just don't want to admit it. (Imagine introducing C declarations into a current language.) > Then your point is minor at best. Here's a thought experiment: > suppose I suddenly came to my senses and agreed with everything > you say: I'm willing to totally toss out C and adopt Bart's > language yesterday. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY LANGUAGE! Why hasn't there long been an alternative systems language that didn't have C's crazy syntax and stupid quirks? I mean like 30-50 years ago. Yes, mine has lots of examples of how some alternative features could work; so what? I am not selling my language. > Where do I get a compiler? What learning > resources exist? Oh, and I need it to generate code for an > ARM Cortex-M0 part; does it do that? I also need RV64GC and > x86_64 and probably aarch64, too. Might want to throw in > Xtensa while we're at it: does your compiler do all of that? > What if I need a debugger? Oh, and I need to use crypto > libraries that are supplied from a vendor; they use the C ABI. > What's the inter-op story like? My language was for in-house use; it was never intended as a product. (If you really want to try it, I can supply an ASM file for you to build, but it works on Windows. I can no longer supply a transpiled C version that part work on Linux; I have destroyed my C-related projects.) The C API (not ABI) point is valid, and another bugbear. Why can't APIs be expressed in a language-agnostic manner? This would help other languages that also need to solve the problem of creating bindings to libraries that primarily use a C API. C is a terrible choice for a cross-language API, as too many C-isms creep in (like C macros, or vaguely defined types, including the famous 'plain char' that exists in no other language, which is neither signed nor unsigned, and above all C preprocessor features). > Good for you. Totally irrelevant to the history of C. It means that meagre hardware resources don't have to compromise the design of a language, especially when it comes to syntax. So you can't use limited resources as an excuse for its questionable choices. Actually some choices actually made it harder to parse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b2e9r$14ag7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403248 |
On 17/10/2026 22:40, bart wrote: > On 17/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11avmfb$55rt$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 17/10/2026 04:19, Dan Cross wrote: >>>> In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> >>>> wrote: >> Yes. C's declaration syntax is famously abstruse; film at 11. I'm not sure it is. It is different from what you find in some other languages, and it is certainly possible to write declarations in C that are hard to comprehend. But it is possible to do that in any programming language, and equally you can write clear declarations in C. It is very rare that I have to think about the syntax of declarations when I write C code, or when I read C code - maybe that's just my own experience, but it is simply not an issue for me. Mind you, I don't write code with the rubbish that you bring up as "examples" - maybe my experience is different from that of other people. > > And ... that's it? Just accept it? How about doing something about it! > What, exactly, do you think any of us should do about it? Let's hear a clear, realistic, concrete plan for how people here, the readers of comp.lang.c, can go about changing the syntax for C declarations. Note that continually posting complaints to people who did not design the C language, do not implement C compilers, and are not part of the C standards committee, is not a realistic or concrete plan for change. Nor is continually badgering people to "admit" that C is a terrible language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3r71$6me$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403248 |
In article <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 17/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <11avmfb$55rt$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2026 04:19, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <11auad0$3no1k$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>> Those are considered more productive.
>>>>
>>>> ...and you think that's because of the syntax, and not the high
>>>> level nature of those languages?
>>>
>>> It's a combination.
>>
>> Riiiight.
>
>So greatly simplifying syntax, all other things being equal, does not
>increase productivity at all? Gotcha.
Logical fallacy. I didn't say it did not; I said the languages
you pointed out as being "more productive" than C had other
attributes that make them more productive that you ignored in
your fervor to focus solely on syntax.
I see that you convenient snipped out my comment about C++,
which is the direct counter example. C++ shares much syntax
with C, but also has attributes that make it (generally) more
productive than C; for example, a broad standard library of
generic types and a useful `std::string` type.
Go and Rust both similarly share lots of syntactic elements with
C, yet both are also broadly more "productive".
>> Yes. C's declaration syntax is famously abstruse; film at 11.
>
>And ... that's it? Just accept it? How about doing something about it!
One time, shortly before I deployed to Afghanistan, my (then)
girlfriend and I were sleeping in my apartment in the far
northern reaches of Manhattan when a very (VERY) loud party
started blaring music outside; it was about 1am, and it woke us
both up. "Well, aren't you going to _do_ something about it?"
she asked me, to which I replied, "what, exactly, would you like
me to do?"
I survived that deployment, but the relationship did not.
>I'm angry because to me C was so unusable that I had to create and
>maintain my own products over decades.
"Had" is a strong word; dare I say it...a subjective word.
In fact, there have been all kinds of alternatives for years.
In the earlish 1980s, there was Modula-2, PL/M, Forth, Ada, CLU,
BLISS, and so on. You yourself admit you started from Algol68.
By the late 1980s you had Oberon, decent versions of ML, C++
and Objective-C, etc; by the 1990s, there were more than you
could shake a stick at. Now? Take your pick.
You never "had" to use your own language.
>Then I later found that C had insinuated itself into every API and every
>open source product I wanted to use. Even ABIs, supposedly
>language-neutral, pay deference to it. Even as a compiler target, there
>was no other choice.
>
>So I ended having to deal with it anyway, but thankfully avoided have to
>write it.
See my earlier post. That ecosystem is one of the things that
makes C _useful_. /eyeroll
>>> If C had used LTR type syntax and somebody
>>> proposed using inside-out back-and-forth syntax like 'void(*)(void)',
>>> they'd think they were having a laugh, as it would be ridiculous.
>>
>> Unknowable.
>
>You do know; you just don't want to admit it. (Imagine introducing C
>declarations into a current language.)
No, really; C's declaration syntax was inspired by FORTRAN, and
generations of scientists and engineers have managed that
language just fine. Generations of programmers have handled C's
all right as well.
>> Then your point is minor at best. Here's a thought experiment:
>> suppose I suddenly came to my senses and agreed with everything
>> you say: I'm willing to totally toss out C and adopt Bart's
>> language yesterday.
>
>THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY LANGUAGE!
Then why do you keep bringing your language up, showing snippets
of its syntax, and so on?
>Why hasn't there long been an alternative systems language that didn't
>have C's crazy syntax and stupid quirks? I mean like 30-50 years ago.
There...have been? And still are?
>Yes, mine has lots of examples of how some alternative features could
>work; so what? I am not selling my language.
Oh good, so you'll stop bringing it up?
>> Where do I get a compiler? What learning
>> resources exist? Oh, and I need it to generate code for an
>> ARM Cortex-M0 part; does it do that? I also need RV64GC and
>> x86_64 and probably aarch64, too. Might want to throw in
>> Xtensa while we're at it: does your compiler do all of that?
>> What if I need a debugger? Oh, and I need to use crypto
>> libraries that are supplied from a vendor; they use the C ABI.
>> What's the inter-op story like?
>
>My language was for in-house use; it was never intended as a product.
>
>(If you really want to try it, I can supply an ASM file for you to
>build, but it works on Windows. I can no longer supply a transpiled C
>version that part work on Linux;
Not really, no. I don't do Windows, and I have no desire to
waste my time mucking about with random assembler to get it to
run on something I do have.
But this sort of thing is exactly what I'm talking about: your
language is not useful beyond a userbase of one. You solved a
set of "problems" that you defined for yourself, whether they
were real or not, and now are now sitting here trying to use
that as evidence about a general argument based on false
premises ("there was no alternative! I _had_ to do my own
thing!" "Oh, can I look at it?" "Oh, no; it only works for me,
on my laptop." "....").
>I have destroyed my C-related projects.)
Uh, ok.
>The C API (not ABI) point is valid, and another bugbear. Why can't APIs
>be expressed in a language-agnostic manner? This would help other
>languages that also need to solve the problem of creating bindings to
>libraries that primarily use a C API.
In fact, there have been efforts to do this for _years_. From
heavy weight IDLs and ORBs to wrappers like `swig`, and all of
the languages that used common ABIs (like the VAX Calling
Standard). They all suffer from one of two primary categories
of problems: a) either the mechanisms are too heavyweight or
cumbersome for easy use, or b) the semantics of languages vary
far too much between languages, so even if you can do something
simple like define compatible data types, language A may not be
able to meet all the constraints imposed by language B.
>C is a terrible choice for a cross-language API, as too many C-isms
>creep in (like C macros, or vaguely defined types, including the famous
>'plain char' that exists in no other language, which is neither signed
>nor unsigned, and above all C preprocessor features).
That's why ABIs matter.
Look at the Vax-11 Procedure Calling and Condition Handling
Standard from VMS 2.0; they simply wrote down what this stuff
meant, and you could call between essentially any language on
that system, whether it was C, Fortran, Bliss, COBOL, or
whatever.
>> Good for you. Totally irrelevant to the history of C.
>
>It means that meagre hardware resources don't have to compromise the
>design of a language, especially when it comes to syntax.
>
>So you can't use limited resources as an excuse for its questionable
>choices. Actually some choices actually made it harder to parse.
The team that created C was familiar with, and rather liked,
Richard Martin's BCPL. B was created as sort of a chopped down
BCPL that could fit on the PDP-7, a machine with 4KW of 18-bit
core memory, at an access time of ~1.5ms, where most
instructions touch memory twice. Oh, and that machine was
running a multitasking, multiuser operating system and was
self-hosting. And you are seriously comparing your single-user
home PC with 64k of RAM to that environment? I'm not sure you
know what "hardware limitations" are.
As mentioned, C came from B, once they got a PDP-11; it was an
incremental evolution of a language they already had. The type
syntax you find so distasteful was inspired by FORTRAN.
It's so weird to me that you make such absolute pronouncements
about C and the choices that into its design, but are so
ajbectly ignorant of the actual history. Bluntly, you just are
not very well informed about it to make cogent comments.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b4n9g$4fik$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #403301 |
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
> In article <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>C is a terrible choice for a cross-language API, as too many C-isms
>>creep in (like C macros, or vaguely defined types, including the famous
>>'plain char' that exists in no other language, which is neither signed
>>nor unsigned, and above all C preprocessor features).
>
> That's why ABIs matter.
>
> Look at the Vax-11 Procedure Calling and Condition Handling
> Standard from VMS 2.0; they simply wrote down what this stuff
> meant, and you could call between essentially any language on
> that system, whether it was C, Fortran, Bliss, COBOL, or
> whatever.
That is getting off-topic, but I looked at VMS documentation.
Simple cases are described with a lot of details. But I was
unable to find general case. Say, given array of structs
containing notrivial types like arrays inside. It seems that
for such types it is essentially "whatever language processor
decides to do" and the other end must know the convention.
Which seem to be exactly what happens on other platforms.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b50pe$ekp$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403310 |
In article <11b4n9g$4fik$2@paganini.bofh.team>,
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>> In article <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>>C is a terrible choice for a cross-language API, as too many C-isms
>>>creep in (like C macros, or vaguely defined types, including the famous
>>>'plain char' that exists in no other language, which is neither signed
>>>nor unsigned, and above all C preprocessor features).
>>
>> That's why ABIs matter.
>>
>> Look at the Vax-11 Procedure Calling and Condition Handling
>> Standard from VMS 2.0; they simply wrote down what this stuff
>> meant, and you could call between essentially any language on
>> that system, whether it was C, Fortran, Bliss, COBOL, or
>> whatever.
>
>That is getting off-topic, but I looked at VMS documentation.
>Simple cases are described with a lot of details. But I was
>unable to find general case. Say, given array of structs
>containing notrivial types like arrays inside. It seems that
>for such types it is essentially "whatever language processor
>decides to do" and the other end must know the convention.
>Which seem to be exactly what happens on other platforms.
I imagine in that case one would use an array descriptor to
describe the array, and then a more specific descriptor (or set
of) to describe the structure of each element of the array.
In any event, the thing they did that's relevant here is
describing the properties of the basic types (what the VAX-11
run-time library reference manual calls, "atomic types", which
should not be confused with what we now call atomic types, that
have specific properties on multi-CPU systems; the VMS 2.0 docs
just meant the primitive data types understood by the VAX
hardware; bytes words, long/quad/octowords, and so on).
The point I was trying to make, and how it's relevant to C, is
that this is an early-ish example of what we now would think of
as an ABI, and it made (say) inter-language procedures calls
tractable. I don't know quite how to articulate it in a way
that won't kick over the language-lawyer hornet's nest, but
informally, the C standard doesn't mandate any particular ABI,
and indeed, tries to steer clear of such things to the extent
that it can. Bart complains about the need to deal with the "C
API", but really, he's referring to ABI issues ("is `char`
signed or not?" The ISO C doesn't say, but within each ABI, we
know.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b500f$216c4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403301 |
On 19/10/2026 02:19, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I see that you convenient snipped out my comment about C++,
> which is the direct counter example.
I don't want to discuss C++. That language is abominable, other than as
the go-to example of language design going very wrong.
> "Had" is a strong word; dare I say it...a subjective word.
>
> In fact, there have been all kinds of alternatives for years.
> In the earlish 1980s, there was Modula-2, PL/M, Forth, Ada, CLU,
> BLISS, and so on. You yourself admit you started from Algol68.
> By the late 1980s you had Oberon, decent versions of ML, C++
> and Objective-C, etc; by the 1990s, there were more than you
> could shake a stick at. Now? Take your pick.
>
> You never "had" to use your own language.
OK. But they HAD to create C? There were quite a few languages in the
early 70s too: like Pascal, Fortran, PL/I, Coral-66, plus of course BCPL
and B. So why a new one?
Anyway you don't know my circumstances. My homemade machine had
absolutely ZERO software. I literally had to start from binary machine
code, as there was no keyboard at first (more below).
I also never used Algol68; I'd only seen it in a book.
In my job later I was an engineer, not a programmer, and there was no
budget for software such as compilers. But they would anyway have been a
nightmare to install (floppy disk formats were not standard!), and would
been hopelessly slow to use.
The language I ended up creating was perfect for my needs and compiled
more or less instantly.
>> You do know; you just don't want to admit it. (Imagine introducing C
>> declarations into a current language.)
>
> No, really; C's declaration syntax was inspired by FORTRAN, and
> generations of scientists and engineers have managed that
> language just fine.
FORTRAN syntax looked nothing like C! Unless you mean the general
pattern of 'INTEGER A, B' which was shared by half of all languages.
(I spent a year writing FORTRAN on mainframes and minicomputers.)
> Generations of programmers have handled C's
> all right as well.
How many gave up because it was too much? How many still struggle with
it and have to employ those 4 or 5 workarounds which I mention
elsewhere? How much has it affected productivity?
Your statement is meaningless. Maybe some task (in any sphere) takes 17
steps to achieve. People will manage. But then somebody figures out how
to do it in 3 steps; that's better right?
No, according to you: let's stick with 17 steps; people have always
managed, and 10 million people can't be wrong!
> Then why do you keep bringing your language up, showing snippets
> of its syntax, and so on?
Suppose that language didn't exist. I guess then it would be OK to bring
up hypothetical new features and bits of syntax here? People do it all
the time (even Keith did today, of all people).
But if those examples come from an actual, working and proven
implementation, which lend them more weight, then it is not allowed and
the examples then become irrelevant?
I guess it is not playing the game in that case?
>> Why hasn't there long been an alternative systems language that didn't
>> have C's crazy syntax and stupid quirks? I mean like 30-50 years ago.
>
> There...have been? And still are?
In that case, why has C itself been so heavily used, in OSes, drivers,
and endless libraries, rather than one those which you suggest I adopt?
I needed a language that worked at a lower level, could access hardware,
had inline assembly, had a weak type system that allowed all sorts of
underhand methods /to get things done/.
And that is exactly what I created in the early 80s, along with, as it
turned out, very fast implementations.
C would also have been a good fit, and presumably why it was so popular
for actual systems programming tasks.
So WHAT C does is good; HOW it does it is bad - in my opinion, and lots
of others. The difference is others have be work with it, while I had
the choice of persevering with mine.
Still, this is C in 2026:
#include <stdint.h>
uint8_t a, b, c;
This is mine in 1981 and in 2026
byte a, b, c
>> Yes, mine has lots of examples of how some alternative features could
>> work; so what? I am not selling my language.
>
> Oh good, so you'll stop bringing it up?
Forget the actual language: why is not possible to concentrate on some
specific feature or approach, and consider that in isolation and without
bias?
It either has merit or it hasn't. In any case, when I posted a link to
that document about my language, people (especially JP) said it was
derivative with nothing new.
So that's OK then? Just pretend some feature has been used in some more
famous language.
> Not really, no. I don't do Windows,
OK. I mentioned it because some people don't believe my language exists.
I have posted links to working versions over the years, but I usually
found that a waste of time, as now. (I still had to prepare and test the
version I'd have linked to.)
> But this sort of thing is exactly what I'm talking about: your
> language is not useful beyond a userbase of one.
That is 100% not true. It would be useful to anyone working on Windows
or even Linux. But it was never intended as a product used by other
people. As I said I'm not selling it, and would not want to support it.
> You solved a
> set of "problems" that you defined for yourself, whether they
> were real or not,
The scope of my language seems to overlap with the scope of C.
and now are now sitting here trying to use
> that as evidence about a general argument based on false
> premises ("there was no alternative! I _had_ to do my own
> thing!"
I gave you my circumstances above. What would /you/ have done?
> That's why ABIs matter.
You're confusing APIs and ABIs.
ABIs are a matter for compilers. Translating APIs into a set of bindings
for another language is someone else's job.
>> So you can't use limited resources as an excuse for its questionable
>> choices. Actually some choices actually made it harder to parse.
>
> The team that created C was familiar with, and rather liked,
> Richard Martin's BCPL. B was created as sort of a chopped down
> BCPL that could fit on the PDP-7, a machine with 4KW of 18-bit
> core memory, at an access time of ~1.5ms, where most
> instructions touch memory twice. Oh, and that machine was
> running a multitasking, multiuser operating system and was
> self-hosting. And you are seriously comparing your single-user
> home PC with 64k of RAM to that environment? I'm not sure you
> know what "hardware limitations" are.
My first machine actually had 256 bytes of RAM, no input, no output, and
unreliable cassette tape storage made with shift registers and counters.
I had ZERO existing software. No money. I didn't work in academia, nor
in a company, had no people to help. There weren't lots of other,
existing machines and terminals lying around to prepare programs on.
Yes the hardware was more compact and cheaper compared with 1970
(although SRAM still cost £24,000,000 per GB -- in 1981 money!) but I
was lacking everything else.
In any case, we're talking about C. Was a PDP 11/20 less powerful than a
2.5MHz Z80 with the 32KB I ended up with? I've no idea. But the crude
language I created FROM NOTHING still looked like this:
int a, b, c
println a + b
> As mentioned, C came from B, once they got a PDP-11; it was an
> incremental evolution of a language they already had. The type
> syntax you find so distasteful was inspired by FORTRAN.
Please give an example of FORTRAN that looks like C.
> It's so weird to me that you make such absolute pronouncements
> about C and the choices that into its design, but are so
> ajbectly ignorant of the actual history. Bluntly, you just are
> not very well informed about it to make cogent comments.
How does knowing the history in such detail help? If a feature stinks,
it stinks.
See my post yesterday about the impact choosing a prefix dereference op
instead of postfix made on the language. It was probably even more
far-reaching than stated.
And yet Pascal was right there!
That choice had nothing to with limited hardware; it was just the wrong one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b518m$1q18k$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403314 |
On 19/10/2026 13:47, bart wrote: > On 19/10/2026 02:19, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11b0mfv$j5ll$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> I see that you convenient snipped out my comment about C++, >> which is the direct counter example. > > I don't want to discuss C++. That language is abominable, other than as > the go-to example of language design going very wrong. And yet it is another /massively/ successful language. Perhaps you are correct that C and C++ are terrible designs - but that would mean "good" and "bad" language design has nothing much to do with how successful a language is, or how many people manage to use the language to write good, working, useful software. Mind you, we have no examples of languages that you consider "good" language design, other than your own languages. > >> "Had" is a strong word; dare I say it...a subjective word. >> >> In fact, there have been all kinds of alternatives for years. >> In the earlish 1980s, there was Modula-2, PL/M, Forth, Ada, CLU, >> BLISS, and so on. You yourself admit you started from Algol68. >> By the late 1980s you had Oberon, decent versions of ML, C++ >> and Objective-C, etc; by the 1990s, there were more than you >> could shake a stick at. Now? Take your pick. >> >> You never "had" to use your own language. > > OK. But they HAD to create C? There were quite a few languages in the > early 70s too: like Pascal, Fortran, PL/I, Coral-66, plus of course BCPL > and B. So why a new one? Check off "whataboutism" on the logical fallacy bingo card ! > >> Generations of programmers have handled C's >> all right as well. > > How many gave up because it was too much? How many still struggle with > it and have to employ those 4 or 5 workarounds which I mention > elsewhere? How much has it affected productivity? I have never heard of anyone giving up C because of the declaration syntax. Have you? Once you have removed pathological examples, I have not seen anyone but C newbies have trouble with real-world C declarations - and having trouble when you are new to a language is perfectly normal for all languages. And by "workarounds", do you mean language features for working with types? I have heard people complain about C's declaration syntax, and heard people say it is weird, or ugly, or counter-intuitive - but not that it actually causes real productivity problems, real bugs, or chases people away from the language. Any point you may have had has been long lost in your wild exaggerations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b5jl1$s7r$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403314 |
In article <11b500f$216c4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 19/10/2026 02:19, Dan Cross wrote: >> I see that you convenient snipped out my comment about C++, >> which is the direct counter example. > >I don't want to discuss C++. That language is abominable, other than as >the go-to example of language design going very wrong. Oh. You don't _want_ to; I see. So you want to make statements about the relative "productivity" of languages but ignore the most prominent counter example to your argument because you don't _want_ to discuss C++. >> "Had" is a strong word; dare I say it...a subjective word. >> >> In fact, there have been all kinds of alternatives for years. >> In the earlish 1980s, there was Modula-2, PL/M, Forth, Ada, CLU, >> BLISS, and so on. You yourself admit you started from Algol68. >> By the late 1980s you had Oberon, decent versions of ML, C++ >> and Objective-C, etc; by the 1990s, there were more than you >> could shake a stick at. Now? Take your pick. >> >> You never "had" to use your own language. > >OK. But they HAD to create C? Doesn't matter. They did. You weren't there; you don't know why they made the decisions they made, whether they gave this or that serious consideration and dismissed it, or were unaware of one thing or another, what constraints they were operating under, etc. It is _so easy_ to sit here and throw stones at people toiling away in the 1960's because they made decisions you don't like. But, bluntly, you haven't put in the work to have an opinion: you are ignorant of the history, and actively resist even simple things like reading the standard to back up your assertions; when you're shown to be incorrect, you double down or (yes) move the goalposts by making some other statement. You came up with your toy language and compiler in the 80s; more than a decade after C. It's cute that you felt you _had_ to do that, but you were in a completely different context than the 1127 folks at Bell Labs who created C. >There were quite a few languages in the >early 70s too: like Pascal, Fortran, PL/I, Coral-66, plus of course BCPL >and B. So why a new one? B _was_ a new language. Pascal as a useful language beyond pedagogy postdates C. Pretty much the rest of this is discussed in DMR's C history paper, which I'm willing to bet you haven't bothered to read. >Anyway you don't know my circumstances. My homemade machine had >absolutely ZERO software. I literally had to start from binary machine >code, as there was no keyboard at first (more below). Next you'll tell us you went to the beach and picked up sand so you could smelt it and create your own silicon wafers, right? You described its capabilities. It was vastly more capable than a PDP-7, and it had only one user: you. >I also never used Algol68; I'd only seen it in a book. You said yourself you modeled your language on Algol68; whether you had used it or not is irrelevant. >In my job later I was an engineer, not a programmer, and there was no >budget for software such as compilers. But they would anyway have been a >nightmare to install (floppy disk formats were not standard!), and would >been hopelessly slow to use. > >The language I ended up creating was perfect for my needs and compiled >more or less instantly. You said you could not use a compiler and then literally described using a compiler. >>> You do know; you just don't want to admit it. (Imagine introducing C >>> declarations into a current language.) >> >> No, really; C's declaration syntax was inspired by FORTRAN, and >> generations of scientists and engineers have managed that >> language just fine. > >FORTRAN syntax looked nothing like C! Unless you mean the general >pattern of 'INTEGER A, B' which was shared by half of all languages. That was literally the thing you said you address with left-to-right syntax, and that anyone who proposed such would be laughed at. Now it's fine, just not in C. Because C is bad. Or something. >(I spent a year writing FORTRAN on mainframes and minicomputers.) I'm sure no one else here has done that. (*rolls eyes*) >> Generations of programmers have handled C's >> all right as well. > >How many gave up because it was too much? How many still struggle with >it and have to employ those 4 or 5 workarounds which I mention >elsewhere? How much has it affected productivity? > >Your statement is meaningless. Maybe some task (in any sphere) takes 17 >steps to achieve. People will manage. But then somebody figures out how >to do it in 3 steps; that's better right? Maybe, maybe not. There may well be other considerations that factor into that decision. >No, according to you: let's stick with 17 steps; people have always >managed, and 10 million people can't be wrong! So by this metric, it's cool if a pilot just jumps into an airliner, turns it on, and takes off? The rest of the pre-flight checklist is just busywork, amirite? >> Then why do you keep bringing your language up, showing snippets >> of its syntax, and so on? > >Suppose that language didn't exist. I guess then it would be OK to bring >up hypothetical new features and bits of syntax here? People do it all >the time (even Keith did today, of all people). > >But if those examples come from an actual, working and proven >implementation, which lend them more weight, then it is not allowed and >the examples then become irrelevant? If you want to discuss C on its merits, then discuss C. Unfortunately for you that would probably mean you'd have to actually read the relevant documentation. Do you _really_ think that the people who post here regularly are not aware that, say, other variable declaration syntaxes exist that are less messy than C's? No, seriously, don't give me some other example from your language, answer that question honestly: do you _really_ believe that no one here understands that fact, or just outright disbelieves it? >I guess it is not playing the game in that case? >>> Why hasn't there long been an alternative systems language that didn't >>> have C's crazy syntax and stupid quirks? I mean like 30-50 years ago. >> >> There...have been? And still are? > >In that case, why has C itself been so heavily used, in OSes, drivers, >and endless libraries, rather than one those which you suggest I adopt? I can think of any number of reasons: legacy, compatibility, tool availability, in some cases just personal preference. For any one of these, I'm sure that someone has already told you sometime in the last six months. My repeating them is unlikely to have any effect. >I needed a language that worked at a lower level, could access hardware, >had inline assembly, had a weak type system that allowed all sorts of >underhand methods /to get things done/. >[snip same stuff over again] No one cares. >[snip] >I gave you my circumstances above. What would /you/ have done? Probably not spent years seething about how the rest of the world is wrong for making decisions I would not have. >[snip] >> That's why ABIs matter. > >You're confusing APIs and ABIs. > >ABIs are a matter for compilers. Translating APIs into a set of bindings >for another language is someone else's job. You really don't understand how multilangauge environments work, do you? Maybe have a look at an ABI document at some point. >[snip sob story about walking uphill both ways in the snow] >But the crude >language I created FROM NOTHING still looked like this: > > int a, b, c > println a + b Ok. Don't really care. >> As mentioned, C came from B, once they got a PDP-11; it was an >> incremental evolution of a language they already had. The type >> syntax you find so distasteful was inspired by FORTRAN. > >Please give an example of FORTRAN that looks like C. Why? What would that show? If you'd get over yourself for ten minutes and read the HOPL paper on C, you may see this: |Fortran influenced the syntax of declarations: B declarations |begin with a specifier like `auto` or `static`, followed by a |list of names, and C not only followed this style but |ornamented it by placing its type keywords at the start of |declarations. (https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist.html) >> It's so weird to me that you make such absolute pronouncements >> about C and the choices that into its design, but are so >> ajbectly ignorant of the actual history. Bluntly, you just are >> not very well informed about it to make cogent comments. > >How does knowing the history in such detail help? If a feature stinks, >it stinks. Much of your ranting amounts to, "how could anyone have possibly thought this was a good idea?" Perhaps if you looked into the history a bit, you may become enlightened as to why anybody possibly thought it was a good idea. >See my post yesterday about the impact choosing a prefix dereference op >instead of postfix made on the language. It was probably even more >far-reaching than stated. > >And yet Pascal was right there! Amazingly, ALGOL W used syntax much closer to C's, despite being the immediate predecessor of Pascal. >That choice had nothing to with limited hardware; it was just the wrong one. One final quote from HOPL: |Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing |one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or |Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our |resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All |these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do |things on our own. So, they were aware of all the languages you've cited as influences. And yet they decided to do things differently. Perhaps they had their reasons. They are not (in the case of Ken) and were not (sadly, in the case of Dennis) idiiots or fools. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b5rce$2c5f4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403330 |
On 19/10/2026 18:22, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11b500f$216c4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 19/10/2026 02:19, Dan Cross wrote: >>> I see that you convenient snipped out my comment about C++, >>> which is the direct counter example. >> >> I don't want to discuss C++. That language is abominable, other than as >> the go-to example of language design going very wrong. > > Oh. You don't _want_ to; I see. So you want to make statements > about the relative "productivity" of languages but ignore the > most prominent counter example to your argument because you > don't _want_ to discuss C++. > >>> "Had" is a strong word; dare I say it...a subjective word. >>> >>> In fact, there have been all kinds of alternatives for years. >>> In the earlish 1980s, there was Modula-2, PL/M, Forth, Ada, CLU, >>> BLISS, and so on. You yourself admit you started from Algol68. >>> By the late 1980s you had Oberon, decent versions of ML, C++ >>> and Objective-C, etc; by the 1990s, there were more than you >>> could shake a stick at. Now? Take your pick. >>> >>> You never "had" to use your own language. >> >> OK. But they HAD to create C? > > Doesn't matter. They did. You weren't there; you don't know > why they made the decisions they made, whether they gave this or > that serious consideration and dismissed it, or were unaware of > one thing or another, what constraints they were operating > under, etc. > > It is _so easy_ to sit here and throw stones at people toiling > away in the 1960's because they made decisions you don't like. > But, bluntly, you haven't put in the work to have an opinion: > you are ignorant of the history, and actively resist even simple > things like reading the standard to back up your assertions; > when you're shown to be incorrect, you double down or (yes) move > the goalposts by making some other statement. > > You came up with your toy language and compiler in the 80s; more > than a decade after C. It's cute that you felt you _had_ to do > that, but you were in a completely different context than the > 1127 folks at Bell Labs who created C. > >> There were quite a few languages in the >> early 70s too: like Pascal, Fortran, PL/I, Coral-66, plus of course BCPL >> and B. So why a new one? > > B _was_ a new language. Pascal as a useful language beyond > pedagogy postdates C. Pretty much the rest of this is discussed > in DMR's C history paper, which I'm willing to bet you haven't > bothered to read. > >> Anyway you don't know my circumstances. My homemade machine had >> absolutely ZERO software. I literally had to start from binary machine >> code, as there was no keyboard at first (more below). > > Next you'll tell us you went to the beach and picked up sand so > you could smelt it and create your own silicon wafers, right? > > You described its capabilities. It was vastly more capable than > a PDP-7, and it had only one user: you. > >> I also never used Algol68; I'd only seen it in a book. > > You said yourself you modeled your language on Algol68; whether > you had used it or not is irrelevant. > >> In my job later I was an engineer, not a programmer, and there was no >> budget for software such as compilers. But they would anyway have been a >> nightmare to install (floppy disk formats were not standard!), and would >> been hopelessly slow to use. >> >> The language I ended up creating was perfect for my needs and compiled >> more or less instantly. > > You said you could not use a compiler and then literally > described using a compiler. > >>>> You do know; you just don't want to admit it. (Imagine introducing C >>>> declarations into a current language.) >>> >>> No, really; C's declaration syntax was inspired by FORTRAN, and >>> generations of scientists and engineers have managed that >>> language just fine. >> >> FORTRAN syntax looked nothing like C! Unless you mean the general >> pattern of 'INTEGER A, B' which was shared by half of all languages. > > That was literally the thing you said you address with > left-to-right syntax, and that anyone who proposed such would be > laughed at. Now it's fine, just not in C. Because C is bad. > Or something. > >> (I spent a year writing FORTRAN on mainframes and minicomputers.) > > I'm sure no one else here has done that. (*rolls eyes*) > >>> Generations of programmers have handled C's >>> all right as well. >> >> How many gave up because it was too much? How many still struggle with >> it and have to employ those 4 or 5 workarounds which I mention >> elsewhere? How much has it affected productivity? >> >> Your statement is meaningless. Maybe some task (in any sphere) takes 17 >> steps to achieve. People will manage. But then somebody figures out how >> to do it in 3 steps; that's better right? > > Maybe, maybe not. There may well be other considerations that > factor into that decision. > >> No, according to you: let's stick with 17 steps; people have always >> managed, and 10 million people can't be wrong! > > So by this metric, it's cool if a pilot just jumps into an > airliner, turns it on, and takes off? The rest of the > pre-flight checklist is just busywork, amirite? > >>> Then why do you keep bringing your language up, showing snippets >>> of its syntax, and so on? >> >> Suppose that language didn't exist. I guess then it would be OK to bring >> up hypothetical new features and bits of syntax here? People do it all >> the time (even Keith did today, of all people). >> >> But if those examples come from an actual, working and proven >> implementation, which lend them more weight, then it is not allowed and >> the examples then become irrelevant? > > If you want to discuss C on its merits, then discuss C. > Unfortunately for you that would probably mean you'd have to > actually read the relevant documentation. > > Do you _really_ think that the people who post here regularly > are not aware that, say, other variable declaration syntaxes > exist that are less messy than C's? No, seriously, don't give > me some other example from your language, answer that question > honestly: do you _really_ believe that no one here understands > that fact, or just outright disbelieves it? > >> I guess it is not playing the game in that case? >>>> Why hasn't there long been an alternative systems language that didn't >>>> have C's crazy syntax and stupid quirks? I mean like 30-50 years ago. >>> >>> There...have been? And still are? >> >> In that case, why has C itself been so heavily used, in OSes, drivers, >> and endless libraries, rather than one those which you suggest I adopt? > > I can think of any number of reasons: legacy, compatibility, > tool availability, in some cases just personal preference. For > any one of these, I'm sure that someone has already told you > sometime in the last six months. My repeating them is unlikely > to have any effect. > >> I needed a language that worked at a lower level, could access hardware, >> had inline assembly, had a weak type system that allowed all sorts of >> underhand methods /to get things done/. >> [snip same stuff over again] > > No one cares. > >> [snip] >> I gave you my circumstances above. What would /you/ have done? > > Probably not spent years seething about how the rest of the > world is wrong for making decisions I would not have. > >> [snip] >>> That's why ABIs matter. >> >> You're confusing APIs and ABIs. >> >> ABIs are a matter for compilers. Translating APIs into a set of bindings >> for another language is someone else's job. > > You really don't understand how multilangauge environments work, > do you? Maybe have a look at an ABI document at some point. > >> [snip sob story about walking uphill both ways in the snow] >> But the crude >> language I created FROM NOTHING still looked like this: >> >> int a, b, c >> println a + b > > Ok. Don't really care. > >>> As mentioned, C came from B, once they got a PDP-11; it was an >>> incremental evolution of a language they already had. The type >>> syntax you find so distasteful was inspired by FORTRAN. >> >> Please give an example of FORTRAN that looks like C. > > Why? What would that show? > > If you'd get over yourself for ten minutes and read the HOPL > paper on C, you may see this: > > |Fortran influenced the syntax of declarations: B declarations > |begin with a specifier like `auto` or `static`, followed by a > |list of names, and C not only followed this style but > |ornamented it by placing its type keywords at the start of > |declarations. > (https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist.html) > >>> It's so weird to me that you make such absolute pronouncements >>> about C and the choices that into its design, but are so >>> ajbectly ignorant of the actual history. Bluntly, you just are >>> not very well informed about it to make cogent comments. >> >> How does knowing the history in such detail help? If a feature stinks, >> it stinks. > > Much of your ranting amounts to, "how could anyone have possibly > thought this was a good idea?" Perhaps if you looked into the > history a bit, you may become enlightened as to why anybody > possibly thought it was a good idea. > >> See my post yesterday about the impact choosing a prefix dereference op >> instead of postfix made on the language. It was probably even more >> far-reaching than stated. >> >> And yet Pascal was right there! > > Amazingly, ALGOL W used syntax much closer to C's, despite being > the immediate predecessor of Pascal. > >> That choice had nothing to with limited hardware; it was just the wrong one. > > One final quote from HOPL: > |Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing > |one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or > |Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our > |resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All > |these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do > |things on our own. > > So, they were aware of all the languages you've cited as > influences. And yet they decided to do things differently. > > Perhaps they had their reasons. They are not (in the case of > Ken) and were not (sadly, in the case of Dennis) idiiots or > fools. If you're going to shit over everything I say, ignore points and keep changing the subject, then OK you win, I lose. Satisfied?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b65v0$1kr9u$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403330 |
On 2026-10-19 19:22, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11b500f$216c4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: [...] >> I also never used Algol68; I'd only seen it in a book. > > You said yourself you modeled your language on Algol68; whether > you had used it or not is irrelevant. It may be worth the observation we could make here in the flood of bart's posts; most (if not all) features or ideas he seems to have adopted only on a lexical or syntactical level. Given what he gave as examples I have strong doubts that this should be attributed to Algol 68 in its "whole glory". - Syntactical inspiration; maybe. - More than that? - I'd be astonished. [...] > > One final quote from HOPL: > |Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing > |one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or > |Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our > |resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All > |these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do > |things on our own. > > So, they were aware of all the languages you've cited as > influences. And yet they decided to do things differently. Somewhere in a (meanwhile historic; 1990's?) document I read about someone (D.R.?) say that the influence of Algol 68 would be hardly seen in practice (or some such). - It's generally hard to tell if someone adopted concepts from some another specific language or read the language description to just dismiss all their ideas. ;-) In case of "C" and Algol 68, while I indeed see a couple adopted things, they are so rare, lacking the semantic context, or have been realized in a very stripped down variant, that it's hard to speak about being (in a more substantial way) "influenced" by it. To not stress my brain unnecessarily here's what a search suggests: Type Composition, Unions and Casts, Syntax and Operators, and Type Names & Structure. (I could add a few more, but I'd keep it terse.) Type Compositions: fine, but also no rocket science back then. Unions: a completely different concept in "C". Casts: hardly necessary in Algol 68 (primarily used for references). Syntax: beyond block structure, a completely different thing in "C". Operators: Not comparable in many respects. Type Names: 'bool', 'string', 'complex', etc., in original "C"? No. So I agree with the mentioned paper that it's hard to find this Algol 68 inspiration in "C"; and certainly not as a characterizing property of the language. With knowledge and a sharp eye you just find some (often only faint) traces as remains (that might as well have had another origin in some cases as we may infer from the list). Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b67mj$2gqlv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403343 |
On 19/10/2026 23:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-10-19 19:22, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11b500f$216c4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > [...] >>> I also never used Algol68; I'd only seen it in a book. >> >> You said yourself you modeled your language on Algol68; whether >> you had used it or not is irrelevant. > > It may be worth the observation we could make here in the flood of > bart's posts; most (if not all) features or ideas he seems to have > adopted only on a lexical or syntactical level. Given what he gave > as examples I have strong doubts that this should be attributed to > Algol 68 in its "whole glory". - Syntactical inspiration; maybe. - > More than that? - I'd be astonished. Syntax was part-influenced by Algol 60 (DEC), Algol 68, Pascal, Fortran and Ada. It was also case-insensitive (most of them). And expression-based (Algol 68). Type system and semantics were mine and befitted a low level systems language running on and for very low-end hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web