C's syntax (was Re: Python Formatted C Converter (PfCC))

[Alex Martelli]

"Erik Max Francis" <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:39F65EB2.EE2E3B1C at alcyone.com...
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> > But that doesn't mean I have to keep silent when somebody
> > baldly asserts that C's syntax is "pretty good".  Yecch.  It's
> > most definitely *NOT*!
>
> In _your_ very obviously biased opinion.

And many others'.  Re-read this thread, and you'll see many
concurring -- including the one who originally posted the
assertion about "pretty good" (turns out that his only
criterion of judgment here was that C is "compatible with
itself" -- a rather peculiar one).


> > And trying to classify me as "does
> > not like C" because I *detest* its syntax is just silly.
>
> How can you "_detest_" (your emphasis) a language's syntax but like the
> language?  They're inseparable, bub.

A language's syntax is _part_ of that language.  A rather small
part: a typical language processor has less than 1/10th of its
code devoted to syntax issues.  Many people just can't see
that smallness, and consider a lanuage to "be" its syntax.

This is (though not quite as extreme) like considering a book
to "be" its cover.  Sure, the cover is the first thing you see.
But it's so far from "being" the book, that the idiom "judging
a book by its cover" is proverbially used to indicate shallowness
of judgment and perception.  "Judging a language by its syntax"
is a similar (though not quite as extreme) misperception.  The
excessive interest devoted to applications' GUI's compared to
their internals is another example of this kind of mistake.

Nevertheless, if a silly publisher put out, say, "Master and
Margarita" in an edition whose cover is tacky and horrible, I
would not stand silently by if somebody proclaimed that cover
"pretty good".  The goodness, or even greatness, of the novel
itself, would not one whit enhance the cover!  "Judging a cover
by its book" is not a widespread misperception, but it's no
less peculiarly silly and erroneous for being rare.


> Considering that you're the one who's ranting for paragraphs and
> paragraphs about C, it's pretty clear that you have a bee in your bonnet
> about _something_.

I don't wear bonnets (black cowboy hats, if any, being my
chosen headgear).


> Don't like C's syntax?  Don't use it.  Hate its syntax but use it
> anyway?  Live in your own private hell.  Hate its syntax but like it?
> By all means, continue making no sense.

It's impractical to "not use" C syntax, when programming in C.
This was basically the proposal at the root of this thread, and
I'm surprised to hear you voicing approval for it, since it
seemed to be universally disliked.  As for "private hells", this
must surely deserve a good place in the empyreon of Usenet
overstatements, considering how clear I've always made that
syntax is rather a lesser issue for me -- Python's clean and
effective syntax is a minor issue in my love for it, C's horror
of a sorry excuse for a syntax a minor annoyance.

I take a bus to work every day.  It's cheap, fast, generally
punctual and clean.  Most buses on that line are also painted
a horrid shade of orange, a color I wouldn't wish on my worst
enemies (with a possible exception for those who proclaim C's
syntax "pretty good":-).  Do you truly believe this makes my
commuting 'hellish'...?  How *superficial* can you get...?

[But I'm not going to stay silent if some benighted soul starts
lavishing praise on _that_ orange hue -- *yecch*!-)]


Alex