Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: What a stupid gcc! |
| Date | 2012-06-19 01:46 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <jrolkr$eef$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <slrnjtr16f.rk7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <jrkckl$fh4$1@dont-email.me> <a49lc0F7l4U1@mid.individual.net> <jrod56$oum$1@reader1.panix.com> <a49rouF7l4U2@mid.individual.net> |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 06/19/12 11:21 AM, Paul J Gans wrote: >> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 06/17/12 10:47 PM, BartC wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Jorgen Grahn"<grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote in message >>>> news:slrnjtr16f.rk7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid... >>>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14, Varun Tewari wrote: >>>>>> Its simply not stupid, its a simple fact the C++/Java allow >>>>>> decalaration anywhere in the code, but C wants them the first thing >>>>>> when you code. That's all >>>>> >>>>> You could say that "declarations only at the start of block" was a >>>>> stupid design ... I'm very happy this got changed, and it should >>>>> probably have happened earlier, when 'const' and such things were >>>>> introduced. >>>>> >>>>> Now all that remains is to educate the users. Most code I read >>>>> doesn't even use the C89 "at the start of block" rule. It lumps all >>>>> the variables at the start of the function -- even those that are only >>>>> used and only make sense inside some loop, two pages down ... >>>> >>>> But what happens when the code defines a variable two pages into a function, >>>> but you happen to be reading some code using that same variable four pages >>>> into the function! >> >>> Then you (or the original authour) are doing something very very wrong. >> >>>> Where do you go to find the definition? At the start of a >>>> function is usually a good place! You don't always know that a variable is >>>> only used once. >> >>> C is the only language I know that had (in the last century) such >>> restrictive declaration rules. You wouldn't see this argument on a >>> forum for another language. If old C's declaration rules were such a >>> good idea, why have thy been ignored by most (all?) subsequent languages? >> >> I'd think the argument works the other way. Back when C was >> new the other dominant language was FORTRAN. Later came both >> Basic, Algol, and Cobol. All were strongly typed languages. >> >> Of these only C survives to any major extent, proving, it seems >> to me, that it was the most *successful* of these languages. >> Indeed, it also shows that perhaps in spite of its strong typing, >> it has held up under the barrage of "new" languages. >What has strong typing do do with where a variable is declared? Historically? Back when computers were slow and compilations took forever, one wanted a one-pass compiler. To do that (even if there was a post-compilation "fix-up" cycle) one had to have things declared prior to use. Today that isn't so important, though programmers have their preferences. Speaking for myself I have no objection to block-level declaration of temporary variables such as i or j. However giving them names that look like important variables in a routine can be quite confusing, especially if you did not write the code and are only maintaining it. -- --- Paul J. Gans
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What a stupid gcc! zgene <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-06-13 21:41 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-13 18:01 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-06-14 13:00 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-06-14 14:33 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-06-14 14:46 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-06-14 18:19 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-06-13 18:06 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2012-06-13 22:19 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-06-14 09:47 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-06-14 14:37 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-06-13 17:05 -0600
Re: What a stupid gcc! Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-06-14 00:09 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Varun Tewari <tewari.varun@gmail.com> - 2012-06-14 03:14 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-14 06:56 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-06-17 07:18 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-17 11:47 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-17 09:31 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-18 12:34 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-18 08:18 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 05:42 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-18 09:39 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-06-18 09:06 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 07:18 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-19 00:13 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 11:28 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 07:30 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-20 00:16 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-06-17 15:52 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Noob <root@localhost> - 2012-06-18 09:07 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-06-18 09:03 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-06-18 16:02 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-18 19:40 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Noob <root@localhost> - 2012-06-18 23:52 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-06-18 23:09 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 01:30 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:03 +1200
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 06:34 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-06-19 08:43 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 11:00 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 07:05 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 23:21 +1200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 23:22 +1200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-19 13:45 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 15:23 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-06-19 16:14 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 18:01 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 13:59 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-06-19 15:29 -0600
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-19 18:22 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-19 21:13 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2012-06-19 16:27 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 16:38 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-06-20 09:47 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-19 22:44 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-21 01:39 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 10:55 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-21 04:11 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 12:36 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-21 15:33 +0200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-06-21 14:15 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-06-20 09:37 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-20 14:54 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-06-20 18:19 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 00:13 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-21 02:09 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-21 02:05 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 11:49 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-21 14:24 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-22 00:38 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-22 13:37 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-21 01:57 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-06-21 11:46 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-06-21 14:37 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-06-21 19:38 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-21 01:41 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-21 12:28 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-06-19 15:05 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:37 +1200
Re: What a stupid gcc! ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 15:18 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-06-18 23:21 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:26 +1200
Re: What a stupid gcc! Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-06-19 01:46 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 07:19 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-06-19 08:01 -0500
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 09:25 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-06-19 12:57 -0500
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-19 14:59 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-19 01:36 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-06-19 01:48 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-06-18 19:50 -0500
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-19 00:19 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-06-19 12:56 +0100
Re: What a stupid gcc! nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-06-20 00:26 -0700
Re: What a stupid gcc! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-06-20 06:31 -0400
Re: What a stupid gcc! Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-06-18 00:18 -0600
Re: What a stupid gcc! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-06-18 09:15 +0000
Re: What a stupid gcc! Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-06-14 23:21 +0000
csiph-web