> > On 2 Nov, 19:19, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > > On 2009-11-02, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 2:34 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > > >> Could you give us a single concrete example of a language you believe has
> > > >> done a "halfway decent job of language design"?  Hint:  If it has any
> > > >> of the traits you bitch about in C, I won't believe you.

> > "ALGOL 60 was a language so far ahead of its time that it
> > was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also
> > on nearly all its successors".
> >            --C.A.R. Hoare

> Mmmm. From a purist language perspective, perhaps.

>>> not really Algol-60's fault there. The keywords should be
>>> distinguishable from the identifiers. They used bold in books. Some
>>> implementations used quoting to mark the keywords.

>>Languages these days don't seem to have this problem.

> They do, if by "this problem" you mean the problem of distinguishing
> keywords from identifiers.  They just choose the other approach of
> *not* making them automatically distinguishable, with the consequence
> that you can't compatibly extend the language with new keywords.  Thus
> C header files containing identifies such as "new" and "namespace"
> cannot be included in C++ programs.

> Of course, some languages have it even worse.  I remember seeing a
> Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like

>   30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
>   40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$

>>   30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
>>   40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$
>What is the obfuscation?

>>> Of course, some languages have it even worse.  I remember seeing a
>>> Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like

>>>   30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
>>>   40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$

>>What is the obfuscation?

>See!  It works!

>The second line is a comment, as is any line beginning "REM", because
>of Basic's keyword parsing.

>You're right, there wasn't any.  The program I'm remembering had
>several other fake keywords, such as REMEMBER and REMERGE.

> > On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > all of
> > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
> > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
> > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

> > >     1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
> > >         luminous; unclouded.
> > >         [Webster]

> > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

> I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
> first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
> mentioned Justified True Belief.

> clarity: clearness [Chambers]
> clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

> Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
> to go along with it.

> > the visual
> > definition. Furthermore, you've selected an inferior dictionary.

> riight. I assumed you'd just rant that dictionaries were a plot by neo-
> facist capitalist fast cats to supress the worker and and the
> struggling artist. A simple expression of marxist dialetic and
> envisioning the class struggle in a post inductrial age. When I taught
> nash how to win the Nobel prize we didn't use a faggot dictionary as
> neither of us was autistic.

> > The
> > OED has two definitions, one relating to visual clarity and the other
> > linking "clarity" to understanding.

> I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)

> > Its definition of "understanding"

> not its definition of "clarity" then?

> > is the link to knowledge, and its definition of "knowledge" defines it
> > as "justified true belief".- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> > On 2009-11-02,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 2:34 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > Seriously, you're claiming "most C programmers" are confused by this, but
> > you've yet to demonstrate that even ONE programmer has been confused by
> > this.  Every book I'm aware of states it explicitly, and I have never in
> > all my years of programming and reading C code seen a single person make
> > a mistake with this.

> I think there may a bit of "luck" involved here. I suspect a sample of
> C programmers if asked, which order f and g were called in in f() + g
> () most would answer "f".  The reason they hardly get bitten by this
> is a natural shyness of obscure code. And exploiting multiple

>    /* calculate number of entries from start and end */
>    num_vals = -(read_val() - read_val());

> which would probably cause most people to blink.

>    /* calculate velocity from distance and time */
>    velocity = read_val() / read_val();

>    /* read word */
>    word = read_val() << 8 | read_val();

> the last one is plausible

> <snip>

> > >> Could you give us a single concrete example of a language you believe has
> > >> done a "halfway decent job of language design"?  Hint:  If it has any
> > >> of the traits you bitch about in C, I won't believe you.

> "ALGOL 60 was a language so far ahead of its time that it
> was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also
> on nearly all its successors".
>                 --C.A.R. Hoare

> > > C Sharp & Java. Both of these reject reordering of a()+b() and after
> > > precedence, evaluate left to right.

> > Can't speak to C Sharp much.  (Obviously, "portability" is a moot point
> > there.)  But let's keep Java in mind, then.

> I've heard it said that both Java and C Hash are both equally
> unportable as both both only run on a single platform (their VM)
> :-)

> <snip>

> > > Nobody's capable of thinking themselves at all "intelligent" unless
> > > constantly and addictively reassured by meaningless victories over
> > > code that was in most cases poorly designed in a hack o rama, like
> > > rats pressing a lever.

> speak for yourself

> > Name one.

> > Seriously, you're claiming "most C programmers" are confused by this,
> > but you've yet to demonstrate that even ONE programmer has been confused
> > by this.  Every book I'm aware of states it explicitly, and I have never
> > in all my years of programming and reading C code seen a single person
> > make a mistake with this.

> You probably have forgotton about Herb Schildt. Herb was the kind of
> red blooded American guy who only needed to bought a Borland compiler
> , got himself a copy of the C standard, to write a book about the
> infamous C programming language standard, that almost won the him
> the Pullitzer price, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize
> for economics, too!

> >>> You've admitted that you don't know much about C.  You've proven that

> But he taught it at Princeton, you fool!

> >> No, I have said that while I was asked Princeton to teach C, and assist

> OMG

> AvK- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

>> > On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > all of
>> > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
>> > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
>> > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

>> > >     1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
>> > >         luminous; unclouded.
>> > >         [Webster]

>> > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

>> I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
>> first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
>> mentioned Justified True Belief.

>The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
>And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
>as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
>definition.

>> clarity: clearness [Chambers]
>> clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

>> Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
>> to go along with it.

>No, I used the OED.

> > > >     1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
> > > >         luminous; unclouded.
> > > >         [Webster]

> > > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

> > I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
> > first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
> > mentioned Justified True Belief.

> The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
> And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
> as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
> definition.

> No, I used the OED.

> No, your use of dictionaries is in error. And if you can't spell
> "dialectic" don't satirize Marxist writings. You look like a fool.

> > I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)

> > > Its definition of "understanding"

> > not its definition of "clarity" then?

> > > is the link to knowledge, and its definition of "knowledge" defines it
> > > as "justified true belief".

> <snip>

> > [*]  Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
> > delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with
> > a merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.

> Hanlon's Razor applies.

>No, he just cherry-picked.

>> And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
>> "definition":

>Sort of.

>> CLEAR:
>> 7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
>> fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
>> b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.

>"Easy to understand".

>Well, yes, but his ass contains a list of the definitions of "understanding",
>one of which includes knowledge, and also a particular definition of
>the word "knowledge".

>Yeah.  But he's right, NPD is not a learning disability per se.

> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 8:01 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On 1 Nov, 03:25,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> > On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> >> > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > all of
> >> > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
> >> > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
> >> > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

> >> > >     1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
> >> > >         luminous; unclouded.
> >> > >         [Webster]

> >> > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

> >> I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
> >> first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
> >> mentioned Justified True Belief.

> >The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
> >And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
> >as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
> >definition.

> >> clarity: clearness [Chambers]
> >> clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

> >> Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
> >> to go along with it.

> >No, I used the OED.

> No, you made it up.

> These are ALL the definitions of "clarity" in the OED:
> (http://dictionary.oed.com)
> CLARITY
> 1. Brightness, lustre, brilliancy, splendour. Obs. (An exceedingly
> common sense in 17th c.)
>     b. with pl. Obs.
>     c. fig. ‘Light’. Obs.
> 2. Glory, divine lustre. Obs.
> 3. Illustrious quality; lustre of renown. Obs.
> 4. Clearness: in various current uses; e.g. of colour, sky,
> atmosphere, sight, intellect, judgement, conscience, style.

> And these are all the definitions of
> CLEARNESS
> The quality of being clear; in various senses of the adj.
> 1. Brightness, luminousness; splendour, brilliancy; fairness, beauty;
> fineness of weather. Obs.
> 2. Freedom from opacity, obscurity, or discolourment; distinctness or
> purity of light or colour; transparency, pellucidness.
> 3. Distinctness of vision, sound, expression, comprehension, etc.
> 4. Purity; innocence; openness. Obs.
> 5. Freedom from anything obstructive.

> And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
> "definition":
> CLEAR:
>  A. adj. I. Of light, colour, things illuminated.
> 1. a. orig. Expressing the vividness or intensity of light: Brightly
> shining, bright, brilliant.
> b. Now expressing the purity or uncloudedness of light; clear fire, a
> fire in full combustion without flame or smoke. Also used with adjs.,
> as clear white, brown, etc.
> 2. a. Of the day, daylight, etc.: Fully light, bright; opposed to dusk
> or twilight. arch.
> b. Of the weather: orig. Full of sunshine, bright, ‘fine’; serene,
> ‘fair’. Obs. (Cf. to clear up.)
> c. Now: Free from cloud, mists, and haze; a ‘clear day’, ‘clear
> weather’ is that in which the air is transparent so that distant
> objects are distinctly seen; a ‘clear sky’, a sky void of cloud.
> d. fig. Serene, cheerful; of unclouded countenance or spirit. Obs. or
> arch.
> 3. a. Allowing light to pass through, transparent.
> b. Of coloured liquids, etc.; Translucent, pellucid, free from
> sediment, not turbid or opaque.
> 4. a. Bright or shining, as polished illuminated surfaces; lustrous.
> (Now expressing esp. purity and evenness of lustre.)
> b. gen. Bright, splendid, brilliant. Obs.
> c. A common epithet of women: Beautiful, beauteous, fair. Obs.
> d. Of the complexion, skin, etc.: Bright, fresh, and of pure colour;
> blooming; in modern use, esp. implying purity or transparency of the
> surface skin, and absence of freckles, discolouring spots, or
> ‘muddiness’ of complexion.
> 5. fig. Illustrious. [So L. clrus.] Obs.
> II. Of vision, perception, discernment.
> 6. Of lines, marks, divisions: Clearly seen, distinct, well-marked,
> sharp.
> 7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
> fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
> b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.
> c. Not in cipher or code. Often absol., in clear.
> 8. Of a vision, conception, notion, view, memory, etc.: Distinct,
> unclouded, free from confusion.
> 9. a. Manifest to the mind or judgement, evident, plain.
> b. Of a case at law: Of which the solution is evident.
> 10. Of the eyes, and faculty of sight: Seeing distinctly, having keen
> perception.
> 11. Of the faculty of discernment: That sees, discerns, or judges
> without confusion of ideas.
> 12. Of persons: Having a vivid or distinct impression or opinion;
> subjectively free from doubt; certain, convinced, confident, positive,
> determined. Const. in (an opinion, belief), of (a fact), as to, on,
> about (a fact, course of action), for (a course of action); that. I am
> clear that = it is clear to me that. [So in 12th c. Fr.]
> III. Of sound.
> 13. a. Of sounds, voice: Ringing, pure and well-defined, unmixed with
> dulling or interfering noises; distinctly audible.
> b. Phonetics. Designating one of two varieties of lateral consonants
> (the other being called ‘dark’) (see quots.).
> IV. Of moral purity, innocence.
> 14. fig. from 3: Pure, guileless, unsophisticated.
> 15. a. Unspotted, unsullied; free from fault, offence, or guilt;
> innocent. Cf. CLEAN a.
> b. Const. of, from.
> V. Of free, unencumbered condition.
> 16. a. Of income, gain, etc.: Free from any encumbrance, liability,
> deduction, or abatement; unencumbered; net.
> b. Sheer, mere, bare, unaided. Obs.
> 17. Free from all limitation, qualification, question, or shortcoming;
> absolute, complete; entire, pure, sheer. Cf. CLEAN a.
> 18. Free from encumbering contact; disengaged, unentangled, out of
> reach, quite free; quit, rid.
> a. with from.
> b. with of. Quit, rid, free.
> c. In such phrases as to get or keep (oneself) clear, to steer clear,
> go clear, stand clear, the adjective passes at length into an adverb.
> d. With n. of action.
> 19. Of measurement of space or time: combining the notions of senses
> 17, 18. a. Of distance. Cf. C. 5.
> b. clear side (of a ship): see quot.
> c. clear day or days: a day or days, with no part occupied or
> deducted.
> 20. a. Free from obstructions or obstacles; unoccupied by buildings,
> trees, furniture, etc.; open.
> b. Free from roughnesses, protuberances, knots, branches; = CLEAN a.
> 12.
> c. clear ship: a ship whose deck is cleared for action.
> 21. Free or emptied of contents, load, or cargo; empty; esp. of a
> ship, when discharged.
> 22. Free from any encumbrance or trouble; out of debt; out of the hold
> of the law.
> 23. Free from pecuniary complications.
> 24. slang. Very drunk. Obs.
> 25. a. U.S. slang. Free from admixture, unadulterated, pure, ‘real.’
> clear grit: ‘real stuff’: see quots.
> b. In technical or trade use.
> B. adv. [Clear is not originally an adverb, and its adverbial use
> arose partly out of the predicative use of the adjective, as in ‘the
> sun shines clear’; partly out of the analogy of native English adverbs
> which by loss of final -e had become formally identical with their
> adjectives, esp. of CLEAN adv., which it has largely supplanted.]
> 1. Brightly, with effulgence; with undimmed or unclouded lustre. [Cf.
> bright similarly used.]
> 2. In a clear or perspicuous manner; distinctly. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
> 3. Manifestly, evidently. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
> 4. a. With clear voice; distinctly; CLEARLY.
> b. clear-away: entirely, completely.
> 5. a. Completely, quite, entirely, thoroughly; = CLEAN adv. 5. Obs.
> exc. dial. and U.S.
> b. With away, off, out, through, over, and the like; esp. where there
> is some notion of getting clear of obstructions, or of escaping; =
> CLEAN.
> 6. See other quasi-adverbial uses in A. 18c.
> C. n. I. Elliptical uses of the adjective.
> 1. A fair lady, a ‘fair’. Obs.
> 2. Brightness, clearness. Obs.
> 3. The clear part of a mirror. Obs.
> 4. Painting. (pl.) Lights as opposed to shades.
> 5. a. Clear space, part of anything clear of the frame or setting;
> phr. in the clear, in interior measurement. See A. 19.
> b. Colloq. phr. in the clear: (a) out of reach; (b) unencumbered; free
> from trouble, danger, suspicion, etc.; (c) having a clear profit.
> orig. U.S.
> II. Verbal n. from CLEAR v.
> 6. a. A clearing of the atmosphere, sky, or weather.
> b. With adverbs: clear-out, an act of clearing out (see CLEAR v. 26);
> clear-up, an act of clearing up, spec. the settlement of accounts (see
> CLEAR v. 27g); also attrib.
> D. Combinations.
> 1. With the adj.: chiefly parasynthetic; as clear-aired (having clear
> air), clear-crested, -faced, -featured, -hearted, -limbed, -minded,
> -pointed, -spirited, -stemmed, -throated, -toned, -voiced, -walled,
> -witted, etc.
> 2. With the adv., as clear-dangling, -drawn, -judging, -seeing,
> -shining, -smiling, -spoken, -standing, -swayed, -writ, etc. (See also
> A. 1b.)
> 3. Special comb.: clear-air gust or turbulence, disturbance of the
> atmosphere at high altitudes; clear-cake, a kind of confection, partly
> transparent; clear-cut a., sharply-chiselled, sharply defined;
> clear-cutness, the quality of being clear-cut; clear-cutting,
> -felling, the cutting down and removal of every tree in a given area;
> hence clear-fell, clear-felled adjs.; clear-light v., to illumine
> clearly; clear-matin, some kind of bread; clear-skin Austral., an
> unbranded beast (cf. clean-skin); also attrib.; clear-walk (see
> quot.); clear-way, clearway, (a) (see quot. a 1884); (b) a path or
> passage-way; (c) a road on which vehicles are not allowed to park or
> wait; clear-wing, attrib., popular name of the Hawk-moths with
> transparent

> > On 1 Nov, 03:25,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > all of
> > > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
> > > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
> > > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

> > > >     1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
> > > >         luminous; unclouded.
> > > >         [Webster]

> > > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

> > I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
> > first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
> > mentioned Justified True Belief.

> The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
> And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
> as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
> definition.

> > clarity: clearness [Chambers]
> > clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

> > Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
> > to go along with it.

> No, I used the OED.

> > > The
> > > OED has two definitions, one relating to visual clarity and the other
> > > linking "clarity" to understanding.

> > I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)