INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: f253cab1
REPLY: bbf4fe26
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
On 31/12/2023 12:24, Pancho wrote:
> On 31/12/2023 12:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 31/12/2023 11:35, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2023 09:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 08:28:28 +0000
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem was really that C was *so* good, that people did start to
>>>>> write hugely complex stuff in it, and using people who wouldn't know a
>>>>> register or a stack pointer if it poked them in the eye or how DMA
>>>>> worked...to write them.
>>>>
>>>> There were two other factors in the rise of C. You could get a C
>>>> compiler for just about anything, importantly there were several for
>>>> CP/M.
>>>> There weren't many decent languages that were that widely available.
>>>> Also
>>>> almost every university CS course used it from very early on (Cambridge
>>>> being the notable exception because Martin Richards was there) so from
>>>> around 1980 there were a *lot* of people trained in C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought university CS courses of the era avoided C and preferred
>>> more academic, pedagogical languages: Pascal, Prolog, Smalltalk, ML,
>>> Lisp.
>>>
>> Compscis had their head in the clouds and their noses stuck up their
>> arses. We learnt how to code without any 'courses'
>>
>>> The benefit of C was that it was closer to assembler and suited the
>>> low power CPUs of the time, when programmers needed to think close to
>>> the metal in order to achieve acceptable performance.
>>>
>>> On the job, C was easy to learn and the 'C Programming Language' was
>>> a very good manual.
>>>
>> all that
>>
>>> I was taught both OO and functional programming before I ever met C
>>> at work, which may be why I was positive about OO-Design, C++ when it
>>> came along.
>>>
>>> To this day I still prefer my brackets (C, C++, C#) in Pascal style
>>> rather than K&R, which I begrudgingly use with Java.
>>
>> I think I do too.
>>
>> Did pascal have curlies?
>>
>
> TimS used the indentation style name, "Whitesmith", which I'd never
> heard before, so I looked it up. When I look back to then, compared to
> now, the biggest difference for me is that I can just look stuff up. I
> had no idea what Whitesmith meant, but a minute later I know. Back then,
> I would have to spend ages trying to find out, scour multiple books, or
> live in ignorance.
>
Ditto. I discovered I use Whitesmith style too.
To me it makes a block look like a block.
> Apparently, my “Pascal Style” is called Allman.
>
>
>
> Pascal didn't have curlies, they had begin/end, but when I started
> programming C I indented my curlies the same as begin/end in Pascal
>
>> I had a friend with an Apple II and he said he couldnt code in C
>> because it had no curlies...on the kee bored
>>
>
> Apple is Apple, I've never used any of their stuff.
>
I did for a while.
Worst support community ever 'why not just reinstall' was the usual
response to everything.
>
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 1/19 15/0 16/0 19/10 37 80/1 90/1 105/81 106/201 123/130
SEEN-BY: 128/260 129/305 135/225 142/104 153/757 7715 203/0 218/700
SEEN-BY: 218/840 220/70 221/1 6 242 360 226/17 30 100 227/114 229/110
SEEN-BY: 229/112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426 428 452 470 550 616 664
SEEN-BY: 229/700 230/0 240/5832 266/512 267/800 280/5003 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 310/31 320/119 219 319 2119 322/0 757
SEEN-BY: 325/304 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 423/81 460/58 633/280
SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 5053/58
SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 1 320/219 229/426
|
