Russel,
> > Perhaps for a production 'Hello World' printer, but not for a trivial-yet-working
> > example to put up against Derek's claim that program understanding might not exist,
> > which is what I was doing. I'm not trying to teach C programming here, and I
> > think focussing on arguable deficiencies in the quality of the example code
> > is missing the point about whether program understanding might exist.
>
> Actually, I disagree. The fact that the language allows you to write a valid program
> with so much ambiguity in the operational sematics shows, for me, a real problem with
> the programming language.
I was attempting to show that there exist programs that at least some programmers
understand by posting a program that could obviously be understood by at least some
programmers. This is a sufficient condition to counter Derek's nascent belief
that program understanding might not exist. The classic first program is a
'Hello world' program, which is often revealed in a simplified but valid form
to avoid obscuring the program's trivial intent. That such a form of the program
would not be tolerated in a production environment is irrelevant. Despite
apparently having accidentally convened a meeting of C language lawyers, I
believe the point that program understanding clearly exists is still made,
since there are at least some programmers on this list who understand the program.
Perhaps you could suggest an alternative program in language <foo> that will
avoid even these surface issues while still being obviously understandable to
the non-<foo> programmers on the list, in the event that the existence of
program understanding is called into question again.
> Perhaps the time has come for the PPIG group
> to define an superior programming language -- if PP has its knowledge in order then
>it
> should be able to do better than the computer scientists?
A laudable aim that I have toyed with myself from time to time. The question is,
do you want to prove a point, or make a difference? The latter requires the
kind of clout and credibility that takes a lot of effort and lobbying, and I'm
not sure PPIG is up to that task. Please, please prove me wrong.
> > (By the way, the program text above compiles and runs without warning or error on
> > my Linux workstation using the default settings for the system's usual tools.)
>
> But try with the -Wall flag.
>
> Backward compatibility is the bane of progress !
On the contrary, backward compatibility is what let us stand on the
shoulders of our predecessors, rather than on each others' toes. :-)
--
Frank Wales [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
- Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss
To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce
To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help
This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
