Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #53464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-26 21:54 +0100 |
| Last post | 2014-12-19 02:34 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-26 21:54 +0100
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-26 21:56 +0100
Re: the language John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 13:45 -0800
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 11:52 +0100
Re: the language "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-12-01 23:25 -0500
Re: the language "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-12-02 00:56 -0500
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-04 14:52 +0100
Re: the language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-12-04 08:07 -0600
Re: the language Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-04 10:20 -0800
Re: the language Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-26 15:11 -0600
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 12:16 +0100
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 12:18 +0100
Re: the language John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 13:12 -0800
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-11-27 00:37 +0000
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-11-27 01:13 +0000
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-11-26 22:45 +0000
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-27 07:41 +0100
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-27 08:12 +0100
Re: the language Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-11-27 01:43 -0600
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 11:56 +0100
Re: the language Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-11-28 09:08 -0600
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 20:58 +0100
Re: the language Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-11-28 19:22 -0600
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-02 02:59 +0100
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-02 02:53 +0000
Re: the language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-01 21:25 -0600
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-02 06:22 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-11-27 08:37 +0000
Re: the language Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-11-27 16:44 +0800
Re: the language gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-11-27 15:35 +0000
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-11-27 11:58 -0500
Re: the language jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2014-11-27 22:44 +0000
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 09:52 +0100
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-11-28 12:53 -0800
Re: the language Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-11-28 10:07 +0100
Re: the language Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-11-28 14:57 +0100
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-11-28 13:09 -0800
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 12:01 +0100
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-11-28 14:46 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-11-28 13:16 -0800
Re: the language gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-11-28 22:09 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-01 03:40 -0800
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-11-28 14:42 -0800
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-01 03:22 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-11-28 23:09 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-11-28 16:14 -0800
Re: the language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-11-29 01:42 +0000
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-11-29 01:42 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-11-29 04:03 -0800
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-01 00:55 -0800
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-02 05:42 +0000
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-11-28 19:25 -0500
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-01 03:21 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-01 14:02 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-05 10:18 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-07 08:25 +0000
Re: the language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-12-07 10:44 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-07 19:17 +0000
Re: the language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-12-07 15:48 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-08 05:45 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-08 03:27 -0800
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-08 06:00 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-08 06:17 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-08 03:37 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-08 12:53 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 04:21 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 12:43 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 14:46 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 00:23 +0000
Re: the language JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-17 07:01 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 07:22 +0000
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-17 11:56 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-17 05:43 -0800
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:30 +0100
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:41 +0100
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 14:34 +0000
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-18 02:15 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-17 22:31 -0500
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-18 17:19 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 07:52 +0000
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-18 17:21 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:15 +0000
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-19 01:20 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 07:48 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 07:40 -0500
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 12:54 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 09:54 -0500
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 15:19 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 11:00 -0500
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 16:13 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 11:27 -0500
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 16:45 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 13:48 -0500
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 19:10 +0000
Re: the language Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-19 21:17 -0600
Re: the language Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-19 21:32 -0600
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-19 16:49 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 17:00 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-19 13:57 -0500
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-19 14:31 -0800
Re: the language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-19 20:29 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 20:36 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 07:18 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 15:45 +0000
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 16:50 +0000
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-17 17:24 +0000
Re: the language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:07 -0600
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-18 12:04 +0000
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-18 08:06 -0500
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-18 08:30 -0500
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-19 00:11 -0500
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-19 07:00 +0000
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-19 08:43 -0800
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-19 23:29 -0500
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-20 00:37 -0800
Re: the language gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-20 08:45 +0000
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-20 09:45 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-20 03:17 -0800
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-18 06:09 -0800
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-18 14:30 +0000
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-18 14:23 +0000
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-18 08:18 -0800
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-20 12:22 -0500
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-20 13:36 -0500
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-20 11:43 -0800
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-20 11:37 -0800
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 20:10 +0000
Re: the language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 15:02 -0600
Re: the language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-21 22:02 +0000
Re: the language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-12-21 23:49 -0600
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-21 17:45 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-18 10:29 -0800
Re: the language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-20 05:29 -0600
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 11:32 -0800
Re: the language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 15:23 -0600
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-22 23:39 -0800
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 20:22 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-18 10:24 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:36 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-19 09:24 -0800
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 17:53 +0000
Re: the language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 11:48 -0800
Re: the language JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-19 02:20 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 08:31 +0000
Re: the language JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-19 09:31 +0000
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-19 10:10 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-19 07:08 -0800
Re: the language JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-20 06:39 +0000
Re: the language John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2014-12-20 07:32 +0000
Re: the language Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-04 17:02 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 12:40 -0500
Re: the language Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-04 18:02 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:47 -0500
Re: the language Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:42 -0800
Re: the language glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-06 00:14 +0000
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:19 -0500
Re: the language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 15:59 -0500
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-04 14:30 -0800
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-04 15:44 -0800
Re: the language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:36 -0500
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-28 12:07 +0100
Re: the language "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-02 23:16 +0100
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-03 02:23 -0800
Re: the language "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-03 15:55 +0100
Re: the language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-12-03 15:42 +0000
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-04 04:49 -0800
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-04 09:07 -0800
Re: the language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-04 10:08 -0800
Re: the language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-04 11:49 -0800
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-05 12:32 +0100
Re: the language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-12-04 22:17 +0000
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:17 +0100
Re: the language Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:12 +0000
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-18 23:15 +0100
Re: the language Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-18 23:50 +0100
Re: the language "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-19 02:34 +0100
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 21:54 +0100 |
| Subject | the language |
| Message-ID | <bgfc7at635gna5mll0ifmnlp6iq86prijn@4ax.com> |
one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the problem one want resolve more than language laws etc
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qifc7a1qd4s5t2ebfs92bjqsn4p9pdpjmq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53464 |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:54:56 +0100, Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote: >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour >and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the >problem one want resolve more than language laws etc this is what i, one beginner think...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 13:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <651d978c-712a-4bb4-a787-1d8bf8f80c96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53465 |
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:56:51 PM UTC-6, Rosario193 wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:54:56 +0100, Rosario193 > <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour > >and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the > >problem one want resolve more than language laws etc > > this is what i, one beginner think... C was not designed to teach programming, and I've argued before that it's not a good language for beginners. C was designed to be portable, easy to implement, and fast, and as a result the language definition is a little loose in places and some concepts are not as intuitive as they could be. It was also designed to get out of the programmer's way as much as possible, so it won't necessarily alert you when you're doing something stupid. You want simple, go with Lisp, it's about as simple as programming languages get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 11:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pkkg7a51fl6bdqfvs3k0afarokev7rl61i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53471 |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:45:18 -0800 (PST), John Bode wrote: >On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:56:51 PM UTC-6, Rosario193 wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:54:56 +0100, Rosario193 >> <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour >> >and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the >> >problem one want resolve more than language laws etc >> >> this is what i, one beginner think... > >C was not designed to teach programming, and I've argued before that it's >not a good language for beginners. it is a good language for beginners what beginner want? a language that program itself too? >C was designed to be portable, >easy to implement, >and fast, and as a result the language definition is a little >loose in places and some concepts are not as intuitive as they could be. in that time there are small cpu, and be fast had to be the way but now i think the problem is only readability [doing one portable language easy to read] >It was also designed to get out of the programmer's way as much as possible, >so it won't necessarily alert you when you're doing something stupid. >You want simple, go with Lisp, it's about as simple as programming languages >get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-01 23:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m5jeuv$joc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #53471 |
"John Bode" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:651d978c-712a-4bb4-a787-1d8bf8f80c96@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:56:51 PM UTC-6, Rosario193 wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:54:56 +0100, Rosario193
>> <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour
>> >and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the
>> >problem one want resolve more than language laws etc
>>
>> this is what i, one beginner think...
>
> C was not designed to teach programming, and I've argued before that it's
> not a good language for beginners. C was designed to be portable, easy
> to implement, and fast, and as a result the language definition is a
> little
> loose in places and some concepts are not as intuitive as they could be.
> It was also designed to get out of the programmer's way as much as
> possible,
> so it won't necessarily alert you when you're doing something stupid.
>
> You want simple, go with Lisp, it's about as simple as programming
> languages
> get.
Why is it any harder than anything else?
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-02 00:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m5jk9t$u68$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #53471 |
"John Bode" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:651d978c-712a-4bb4-a787-1d8bf8f80c96@googlegroups.com...
> C was not designed to teach programming, and I've argued before that it's
> not a good language for beginners. C was designed to be portable, easy
> to implement, and fast, and as a result the language definition is a
> little
> loose in places and some concepts are not as intuitive as they could be.
> It was also designed to get out of the programmer's way as much as
> possible,
> so it won't necessarily alert you when you're doing something stupid.
>
> You want simple, go with Lisp, it's about as simple as programming
> languages
> get.
C doesn't teach programming no. If you know programming C would be a
cinch to learn. It's small, powerful. I don't know a thing about Lisp;
except it might leave you talking funny if it's too big.
The problem is learning algorithms. How to solve problems by
programming. If one knew how to do that C is a dandy little language IMO
anyway.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-04 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nkp08atbki65v8f2hvts8u3bboj9tredhb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53737 |
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:56:16 -0500, "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote: > >"John Bode" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:651d978c-712a-4bb4-a787-1d8bf8f80c96@googlegroups.com... > >> C was not designed to teach programming, and I've argued before that it's >> not a good language for beginners. C was designed to be portable, easy >> to implement, and fast, and as a result the language definition is a >> little >> loose in places and some concepts are not as intuitive as they could be. >> It was also designed to get out of the programmer's way as much as >> possible, >> so it won't necessarily alert you when you're doing something stupid. >> >> You want simple, go with Lisp, it's about as simple as programming >> languages >> get. > > C doesn't teach programming no. yes but if one not know a programming language as C: how to write down algorithms without one language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-04 08:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ceb84rFe8ssU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #53879 |
"Rosario193" write: > yes but if one not know a programming language as C: how to write down > algorithms without one language? Pseudocode is not a programming language. Many books on algorithms use pseudocode and it is my favorite method of conveying information of that sort. In prehistoric days they had something called flow charts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-04 10:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d918a9m0tjrqvqtd2k933as49l4o1mqsg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53882 |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:07:25 -0600, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >"Rosario193" write: > >> yes but if one not know a programming language as C: how to write down >> algorithms without one language? > >Pseudocode is not a programming language. Many books on algorithms use >pseudocode and it is my favorite method of conveying information of that >sort. > >In prehistoric days they had something called flow charts. > If you want to have some fun, look up the old NASA Apollo flight computer and control system software documentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 15:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mstorkamp-CE56E3.15115526112014@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #53464 |
In article <bgfc7at635gna5mll0ifmnlp6iq86prijn@4ax.com>, Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote: > one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour > and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the > problem one want resolve more than language laws etc Language laws are there for a reason. In English they're there so people have a common frame of reference to understand what you're saying. It would not be a waste of time to learn them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 12:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kslg7ahs39r35rckjaib0ecjo988nodj6m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53467 |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:11:55 -0600, Mark Storkamp wrote: >In article <bgfc7at635gna5mll0ifmnlp6iq86prijn@4ax.com>, > Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour >> and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the >> problem one want resolve more than language laws etc > >Language laws are there for a reason. In English they're there so people >have a common frame of reference to understand what you're saying. It >would not be a waste of time to learn them. yes i have some difficulty that have origin in be lazy but i not believe in only one language way in all the word: english...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 12:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cemg7atmqrjhm22jpb71c3v8s5gc4i5fhc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53570 |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:16:34 +0100, Rosario193
<Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>yes i have some difficulty that have origin in be lazy
>but i not believe in only one language way in all the word: english...
^^^^
but i not believe in only one language way in all the world:
english...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71d5065f-ac3a-4617-9964-1c2d64e210a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53464 |
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:55:05 PM UTC-6, Rosario193 wrote: > one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour > and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the > problem one want resolve more than language laws etc You're looking for Lisp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20141126162559.41@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #53468 |
On 2014-11-26, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes: >>You're looking for Lisp. > > ANSI Common Lisp: 1029 pages > > N1570: 683 pages Let's compare C and Lisp when C reaches 1029 pages, haha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87d289la2e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #53468 |
John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:55:05 PM UTC-6, Rosario193 wrote: >> one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour >> and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the >> problem one want resolve more than language laws etc > > You're looking for Lisp. Common Lisp has undefined behaviour like a lot of other languages. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <547657db.25493218@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #53464 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> writes: > >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour > >and has to be simple > > ... e per questo tutti noi usiamo il BASIC. ...o forse LOGO. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lihd7aht4feelcj4rv2tj2rrkt5v29ak7s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53478 |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:45:40 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: >ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > >> Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour >> >and has to be simple >> >> ... e per questo tutti noi usiamo il BASIC. the BASIC i remember not has indentation not i remember more instruction for a line i mean, as that language: no UB + simple: some assembly language.... cpu instruction and a macro sys that allow indentation and more instruction for line... i can mean too C with fixed size type as uint32_t etc and operator on them defined without UB... i can mean too C++ as C for basic type, but the subset that has all Class type and operator definiton on them constructor and destrcutor etc operator= etc RAII seems to me they say >...o forse LOGO. > >Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 08:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <53jd7a58ot907ihhnq52ims4fnd4kmqq9p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53464 |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:54:56 +0100, Rosario193
<Rosario@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>one language for program has to have no undefinite behaviour
>and has to be simple...the one that program has to think to the
>problem one want resolve more than language laws etc
the design languages creators
forget the basic of the computer:
the stack (a way for have memory ok for creation and free ),
the registers (fixed size and defined operator witout UB)
the jumps (the loop and if not exist are all jumps)
than it seems nobody think about multi instruction for line
and minimize key words of the language for make fit all the routine in
one screen of PC and artistic apparence of routine self explained
what it does using indentation
C/C++ are the more near... it use good the stack and ok indentation
too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 01:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m56knt$113$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #53495 |
On 11/27/14 1:12 AM, Rosario193 wrote: > than it seems nobody think about multi instruction for line > and minimize key words of the language for make fit all the routine in > one screen of PC and artistic apparence of routine self explained > what it does using indentation I think you can do all of this in C - but some applications will require larger screens than others. :-) -- Morris Dovey http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-28 11:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <h0lg7ah8ul3edkak94djo1kbru7vln9k46@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #53496 |
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:43:59 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote: >On 11/27/14 1:12 AM, Rosario193 wrote: > >> than it seems nobody think about multi instruction for line >> and minimize key words of the language for make fit all the routine in >> one screen of PC and artistic apparence of routine self explained >> what it does using indentation > >I think you can do all of this in C - but some applications will require >larger screens than others. :-) the routines that not fit in a 8'' tablet screen are not ok or to be only very few...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web