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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #2639 > unrolled thread

C's Big Brother is Lurking !

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-19 09:40 -0600
    Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-04-19 22:46 -0500
      Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-19 23:45 -0600
        Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-20 00:02 -0700
        Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-04-24 16:08 -0400
          Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-24 20:26 -0600
            Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-24 22:45 -0700
              Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-25 09:17 -0600
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:28 -0700
                  Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-25 10:31 -0600
                    Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:37 -0700
                      Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-25 10:44 -0600
                        Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 12:00 -0700
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-04-25 11:56 -0400
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-26 01:21 +0000
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> - 2011-04-26 18:02 -0400
                  Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-26 16:34 -0700
            Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-25 02:08 -0700
              Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-04-25 09:49 -0600
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-25 09:43 -0700
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-04-25 14:25 -0400
                Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-26 01:34 +0000
                  Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-26 03:09 +0100
                    Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-26 03:03 +0000
                  Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-25 23:40 -0700
    Re: C's Big Brother is Lurking ! Sourav <souravmishra26@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 20:46 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2639 — C's Big Brother is Lurking !

Hi:

    For those of you who wish to use the C language at a slightly higher 
level, please drop in to the following newsgroup:

        comp.lang.xharbour

    The xHarbour language is based on C and uses a variety of C 
implementations to compile and link its applications.  There are a several 
GUI packages (free and commercial) to build your apps.

    This language is based on the several xBase languages of ten years ago, 
and has brought together the best features of all of them, and exposes 
hundreds of C functions in a very easy C-like syntax:

        Function main()

            local cVrbl := "crackpot"    // 'local' vrbl only accessible in 
this function

            private cAnotherVrbl := "nutcake"    // 'private' vrbl avail 
here and all functions below

            CLS    // Clears the terminal screen

            ? "I'm assessed mentally as : " + cVrbl    // kicks up a line 
and prints

            ? "I'm also known as a : " + cAnotherVrbl  // kicks up anotyher 
line and prints

        /*
            and of course, there are zillions of non-trivial features using 
C and Databases where you can
            become quickly productive and make a good living in our 
language.
            We have about 400 separate tests available for download to 
demonstrate the *power* of
            this language
        */

     return nil

    There are native built-in Comix databases available for your use, and a 
variety of 'SQL' databases easily linkable to your apps.

    You can also include C functions as part of your source code.

    So, if you wish to quickly build an application based on C, then 
xHarbour is the way to go.

    To download the latest implementation of xHarbour:

            -    Visit www.whosaway.com
            -    Enter the Password: XHB

    Better still, visit www.xharbour.com for support, documentation, and 
help on Extended Harbour (xHarbour).


-Mel Smith
webmaster
www.whosaway.com




-- 
Mel Smith

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2669

Mel Smith wrote:
> Hi:
>
>    For those of you who wish to use the C language at a slightly
> higher level, please drop in to the following newsgroup:
>
>        comp.lang.xharbour
>
>    The xHarbour language is based on C

OK, I get it: It's belated April Fools' joke. A NEW language, BASED on C! 
Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you.  Nice try, but no cigar: you can 
fool some of the people some of the time, and take advantage of nice 
people often, but karma is a bitch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2671

Mike says:

> OK, I get it: It's belated April Fools' joke. A NEW language, BASED on C! 
> Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you.  Nice try, but no cigar: you can 
> fool some of the people some of the time, and take advantage of nice 
> people often, but karma is a bitch!
>

Mike:

    This is no joke !

    1.    You write your code in xHarbour (using all its features, classes, 
functions, librairies).
    2.    You compile your source program(s) into C-based pcode.
    3.    You compile this 'C' code into object modules.
    4.    You link these object modules along with other provided librairies 
into a high-speed executable.


    xHarbour is relatively new (about ten years old),  and has a few 
thousand avid programmers making a good living building apps for businesses. 
It is 'new' in the sense that the best features of the several xBase 
languages (Clipper, dBase, xBase, FoxPro, etc) in existence then were 
gathered together, and then those features were implemented into Harbour, 
then xHarbour, and expanded over the past ten years. Altho xHarbour in its 
bare form is a 'console-based' system, it has several GUI implementations --  
some commercial, and a few good ones that are free and are vibrantly active.

    I, myself, have built and installed installed several GUI apps and 
several console apps at a major structural steel company which controls 
their steel beam inventory, does their time-sheet accounting, and provided a 
fast, automatic Estimating system for them to quote on major jobs.

    These tasks all used xHarbour as the base language.

    I am the webmaster of three web sites, and have an Apache Server beside 
me in my office.  I use an xHarbour app *solely* as the CGI for each of 
these sites.

    When (if) you visit my www.whosaway.com site,  the password you input 
(i.e., xhb) is received by my xharbour app (via Apache), databases are 
searched, pages are built live and in real-time, and are sent back from 
xHarbour to you via my Apache server.   Who needs PHP when we have C and 
xHarbour !

    I'm definitely *not* one of the gurus that populate our ng 
(comp.lang.xharbour), but those that visit there daily (including another 
Smith -- David -- no relation) can answer any query you might have.

    btw,  xHarbour is Open Source, and the whole package can be downloaded 
to your site via SVN -- or just go to my whosaway site and get the binary 
package, and the source code to examine.  You'll note that a good portion of 
the functions are written in C itself, and  the remainder in xHarbour.

    You can, of course, build your own functions, and Classes if you wish. 
There are a large variety of contributed librairies to handle a wide variety 
of tasks: from scientific thru internet accessing code, thru business 
processing thru massive database accessing.


-Mel Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2672

On Apr 20, 8:45 am, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>     xHarbour is relatively new (about ten years old),  and has a few
> thousand avid programmers making a good living building apps for businesses.
> It is 'new' in the sense that the best features of the several xBase
> languages (Clipper, dBase, xBase, FoxPro, etc) in existence then were
> gathered together, and then those features were implemented into Harbour,
> then xHarbour, and expanded over the past ten years.
>
There are zillions of languages, many of them based on C. It's a huge
problem. Part of the solution is to do it in C unless there is a
pressing need to use some other language. The problem is that there
are very often such pressing needs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2842

Mel Smith wrote:
> Mike says:
>
>> OK, I get it: It's belated April Fools' joke. A NEW language, BASED
>> on C! Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you.  Nice try, but no
>> cigar: you can fool some of the people some of the time, and take
>> advantage of nice people often, but karma is a bitch!
>>
>
> Mike:
>
>    This is no joke !
>
>    1.    You write your code in xHarbour (using all its features,
> classes, functions, librairies).
>    2.    You compile your source program(s) into C-based pcode.
>    3.    You compile this 'C' code into object modules.
>    4.    You link these object modules along with other provided
> librairies into a high-speed executable.
>
>
>    xHarbour is relatively new (about ten years old),  and has a few
> thousand avid programmers making a good living building apps for
> businesses. It is 'new' in the sense that the best features of the
> several xBase languages (Clipper, dBase, xBase, FoxPro, etc) in
> existence then were gathered together, and then those features were
> implemented into Harbour, then xHarbour, and expanded over the past
> ten years. Altho xHarbour in its bare form is a 'console-based'
> system, it has several GUI implementations -- some commercial, and a
> few good ones that are free and are vibrantly active.
>    I, myself, have built and installed installed several GUI apps and
> several console apps at a major structural steel company which
> controls their steel beam inventory, does their time-sheet
> accounting, and provided a fast, automatic Estimating system for them
> to quote on major jobs.
>    These tasks all used xHarbour as the base language.
>
>    I am the webmaster of three web sites, and have an Apache Server
> beside me in my office.  I use an xHarbour app *solely* as the CGI
> for each of these sites.
>
>    When (if) you visit my www.whosaway.com site,  the password you
> input (i.e., xhb) is received by my xharbour app (via Apache),
> databases are searched, pages are built live and in real-time, and
> are sent back from xHarbour to you via my Apache server.   Who needs
> PHP when we have C and xHarbour !
>
>    I'm definitely *not* one of the gurus that populate our ng
> (comp.lang.xharbour), but those that visit there daily (including
> another Smith -- David -- no relation) can answer any query you might
> have.
>    btw,  xHarbour is Open Source, and the whole package can be
> downloaded to your site via SVN -- or just go to my whosaway site and
> get the binary package, and the source code to examine.  You'll note
> that a good portion of the functions are written in C itself, and the 
> remainder in xHarbour.
>    You can, of course, build your own functions, and Classes if you
> wish. There are a large variety of contributed librairies to handle a
> wide variety of tasks: from scientific thru internet accessing code,
> thru business processing thru massive database accessing.

    Whatever it is it can't compare to C.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2847

Bill said:


">
>    Whatever it is it can't compare to C.

Bill:

    The second step of the compilation produces C- Code, which is compiled 
into object code, which is linked into an executable (i.e., an .exe)

    So, it *is* C -- only a lot more productive and a lot less syntactical 
nonsense.

    If you want to 'bit-twiddle', you *still can* within xHarbour, or if you 
want to be productive and 'sell your warss', its a lot faster and easier.

 -Mel Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2857

"Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> writes:
> Bill said:
>
> ">
>>    Whatever it is it can't compare to C.
>
> Bill:
>
>     The second step of the compilation produces C- Code, which is compiled 
> into object code, which is linked into an executable (i.e., an .exe)
>
>     So, it *is* C -- only a lot more productive and a lot less syntactical 
> nonsense.

No, it's not C.  The fact that it's compiled into a C-like language
doesn't make it C, nor does it make it topical here.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2863

Keith said:

>
> No, it's not C.  The fact that it's compiled into a C-like language
> doesn't make it C, nor does it make it topical here.
>

Keith:

       If I use Borland's C to compile each of my modules (say commonly, 
several dozen major source .prg files) of my business application, and in 
the logging sequence of the build there are no errors in that compilation, 
then I *must* be using C ?

    Or are you saying that Borland's C compiles all sorts of things that are 
*not* C ??

    See ??

    But may you may wish to call it 'Hi C'  for High-level C ??


-Mel Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2865

On Apr 25, 11:17 am, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
> Keith said:
>
>
>
> > No, it's not C.  The fact that it's compiled into a C-like language
> > doesn't make it C, nor does it make it topical here.
>
> Keith:
>
>        If I use Borland's C to compile each of my modules (say commonly,
> several dozen major source .prg files) of my business application, and in
> the logging sequence of the build there are no errors in that compilation,
> then I *must* be using C ?
>
>     Or are you saying that Borland's C compiles all sorts of things that are
> *not* C ??
>
>     See ??

You appear to be making the assertion that: Any generator of C is
topical here, not with regard to discussion of the generated C, but
with regard to the generator.  Feels more like simple advocacy of a
not remotely close to C language.  Are you saying that discussion of
xHarbour implementation that compiles without a C intermediate form
isn't relevant here, but one that compiles with one is?  And do you
actually believe that is somehow sensible, or are you just trolling at
this point?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2869

David said:

You appear to be making the assertion that: Any generator of C is
topical here, not with regard to discussion of the generated C, but
with regard to the generator.  Feels more like simple advocacy of a
not remotely close to C language.  Are you saying that discussion of
xHarbour implementation that compiles without a C intermediate form
isn't relevant here, but one that compiles with one is?  And do you
actually believe that is somehow sensible, or are you just trolling at
this point?


David:

    Yes, I'm just trolling for converts.

    But your comment 'not remotely close' is absolutely false. Pronably, 
xHarbour is the closest language to C there is without actually being C 
itself. It was created by C experts who were trying (in the late 1990's) to 
build a better higher-level language but based on the speed and power of C. 
They did it: xHarbour !

    ... and it is being improved and made ever more powerful every day.

-Mel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2871

On Apr 25, 12:31 pm, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
>     Yes, I'm just trolling for converts.

Sadly I don't have a killfile.

-David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2873

David said:

"Sadly I don't have a killfile.

David:

    Don't be concerned.  I'll leave you folks alone from now on, and will 
only watch, read, and try not to puke :(

-Mel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2882

On Apr 25, 12:44 pm, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
> David said:
>
> "Sadly I don't have a killfile.
>
> David:
>
>     Don't be concerned.  I'll leave you folks alone from now on, and will
> only watch, read, and try not to puke :(
>
> -Mel

Had you posted simple off topic language advocacy I wouldn't have
bothered responding.  I in general am not interested in being the
topicality police, and sometimes offer off topic advice while also
advising people to look elsewhere for details.  But to try and defend
a completely different language as topical to a C group because it is
a front end that in one implementation happens to produce C as topical
here is neither rational nor reasonable.  Not a good approach to being
listened to IMHO.

-David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2867

On 4/25/2011 11:17, Mel Smith wrote:
> Keith said:
>
>>
>> No, it's not C.  The fact that it's compiled into a C-like language
>> doesn't make it C, nor does it make it topical here.
>>
>
> Keith:
>
>         If I use Borland's C to compile each of my modules (say commonly,
> several dozen major source .prg files) of my business application, and in
> the logging sequence of the build there are no errors in that compilation,
> then I *must* be using C ?
>
>      Or are you saying that Borland's C compiles all sorts of things that are
> *not* C ??
>
>      See ??
>
>      But may you may wish to call it 'Hi C'  for High-level C ??
>
>
> -Mel Smith
>
>
Hi Mel. Give it up my friend. You know xHarbour is not C. Although 
harbour.exe takes source.prg and produces source.c suitable for a standard 
C compiler to produce source.exe that doesn't make source.prg a C program.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2892

On 2011-04-25, Mel Smith <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> wrote:
>        If I use Borland's C to compile each of my modules (say commonly, 
> several dozen major source .prg files) of my business application, and in 
> the logging sequence of the build there are no errors in that compilation, 
> then I *must* be using C ?

Not really.

>     Or are you saying that Borland's C compiles all sorts of things that are 
> *not* C ??

There are many translators from other languages to C.  That doesn't make
those languages C, even though you eventually compile stuff that started
in them with a C compiler.

>     But may you may wish to call it 'Hi C'  for High-level C ??

It seems as though you have syntax which isn't C, which is used to create
C code, no?

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2935

On 4/25/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Smith wrote:
> Keith said:
>
>>
>> No, it's not C.  The fact that it's compiled into a C-like language
>> doesn't make it C, nor does it make it topical here.
>>
>
> Keith:
>
>         If I use Borland's C to compile each of my modules (say commonly,
> several dozen major source .prg files) of my business application, and in
> the logging sequence of the build there are no errors in that compilation,
> then I *must* be using C ?

So what?  I will not try to copy Dan Pop's style, but you might benefit 
from reading some of his posts.   Your business application is not in 
itself C.  If someone using your application were to post questions here 
about how to use it, based on the completely silly idea that because it 
is written in C it _is_ C, he would obviously be in the wrong place.

>      Or are you saying that Borland's C compiles all sorts of things that are
> *not* C ??

Besides the obvious that BCC also compiles things written in C++, a 
language that is not C, you suffer from a confusion which, honestly, I 
can't imagine any intelligent person having.  Things written in C are 
not C.  There is a vast array of programming languages, editors, among 
many other things, that are written in C and are not C.
Someone who has problems writing C code in implementing a BASIC 
interpreter may have C questions.  Someone having problems writing a 
program for that BASIC does _not_ have a C question.

>      See ??

See what?  That you are hopelessly confused?

>      But may you may wish to call it 'Hi C'  for High-level C ??

No, it's not C at all.  Get a clue.

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2942

Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> writes:
> On 4/25/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Smith wrote:
[...]
>>      See ??
>
> See what?  That you are hopelessly confused?
>
>>      But may you may wish to call it 'Hi C'  for High-level C ??
>
> No, it's not C at all.  Get a clue.

He's already said he's not going to post here anymore.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2859

On Apr 25, 5:26 am, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>     So, it *is* C -- only a lot more productive and a lot less syntactical
> nonsense.
>
No what you mean is that it will run on any machine that supports a C
compiler.

It's quite common for start-up languages to compile to C for this
reason. However the source language itself doesn't have to be remotely
like C, it could be from the Lisp family of languages or something
entirely of your own invention.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2866

Malcolm said:
>No what you mean is that it will run on any machine that supports a C
>compiler.

    No, what I said is that it is compiled to C code, then compiled again by 
your C-Compiler to object code

It's quite common for start-up languages to compile to C for this
reason. However the source language itself doesn't have to be remotely
like C, it could be from the Lisp family of languages or something
entirely of your own invention.

    But xHarbour is absolutely like C !!   Any C programmer, can sit right 
down, and go to work !   (without worrying about being hand-cuffed with new, 
restrictive syntactical rules)

    (After about 11 years, you still call it a 'start-up' language ???   ---  
Hmmmmph !)

    **************************

    aMyArray = ARRAY(12)

    amyarray[1]="January" ; AMYARRAY[12] := "December"
    AmYArRaY[6] := DATE()

    (i.e., you don't get screwed with Upppercase, Lowercase  syntax crap, 
its all the same array)

    or,
    aCrap := {3.1415926,"3.14",date(),seconds(),"etcetera")


    ? aCrap[4]    // kickls up a line, shows the seconds since midnite

    For I = 1 to 1000000    // a simple loop and counter
        // do anything here
    Next

    or

    For i = 1000000 to 1 skip -2
        // do anything backwards
    next

    while lHellFreezesOver    // any logical/boolean vrbl or expression
        // work away in here until time to exit
        EXIT
    end


-Mel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2872

On Apr 25, 6:49 pm, "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syn...@aol.com> wrote:
> Malcolm said:
>
> >No what you mean is that it will run on any machine that supports a C
> >compiler.
>
>     No, what I said is that it is compiled to C code, then compiled again by
> your C-Compiler to object code
>
> It's quite common for start-up languages to compile to C for this
> reason. However the source language itself doesn't have to be remotely
> like C, it could be from the Lisp family of languages or something
> entirely of your own invention.
>
>     But xHarbour is absolutely like C !!   Any C programmer, can sit right
> down, and go to work !   (without worrying about being hand-cuffed with new,
> restrictive syntactical rules)
>
That's also a common pattern, a C-like language, with some
superiority. It does raise the issue of how C-like a language needs to
be before we should call it C - e.g. if we have garbage collection is
that "C with garbage collection" or "not C"?
>
>     (After about 11 years, you still call it a 'start-up' language ???   ---  
> Hmmmmph !)
>
I hadn't heard of xHarbour before this post. That doesn't mean that it
won't become one of the famous languages. But for the moment you need
to piggyback on C compilers to ensure widespread support - a totally
legitimate strategy.

>     **************************
>
>     aMyArray = ARRAY(12)
>
>     amyarray[1]="January" ; AMYARRAY[12] := "December"
>     AmYArRaY[6] := DATE()
>
>     (i.e., you don't get screwed with Upppercase, Lowercase  syntax crap,
> its all the same array)
>
Removing case sensitivity from C is just a small syntactical change.
The arrays also seem to be 1-based - from experience, this is a grief.
But again, just a small change.

>     or,
>     aCrap := {3.1415926,"3.14",date(),seconds(),"etcetera")
>
>     ? aCrap[4]    // kickls up a line, shows the seconds since midnite
>
Not sure what's going on here. Type information seems to be carried
with the object. many languages do this, but not C, and it's quite a
big change. However is aCrap[4] calling seconds(), as you seem to
imply, or is it initialised with the earlier call (as most lanauges
would have it?)
>
>
>     For I = 1 to 1000000    // a simple loop and counter
>         // do anything here
>     Next
>
>     or
>
>     For i = 1000000 to 1 skip -2
>         // do anything backwards
>     next
>
Standard for loops. Almost every language has them.
>
>     while lHellFreezesOver    // any logical/boolean vrbl or expression
>         // work away in here until time to exit
>         EXIT
>     end
>
While loop and a break. Again, almost every language has this
construct. Or is the exit and exit from the program rather than the
loop? Again, we don't know.

There's not much point, in my view, making small cosmetic changes to C
syntax, like next and end as opposed to curly brackets, unless you
want to emphasise that the script is not C. The real difference seems
to be in the typing system. Carrying type information about at runtime
makes it easier to knock up small snippets of code. However in large
programs, there is a problem. Take x = squareroot(y). What happens if
y is negative? Do we get an imaginary? The problem is this tends to be
one of the things which is poorly documented. It's easy to lose track
of exactly what is being passed where.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web