Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!hao!oddjob!mimsy!eneevax!noise
From: noise@eneevax.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Modern langauges
Summary: Not so strange.
Message-ID: <1162@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 88 00:17:31 GMT
References: <11072@brl-adm.ARPA> <519@gethen.UUCP>
Reply-To: noise@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 28

In article <519@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes:
>V4039%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Stan Horwitz) writes:
>>It's syntax is strange

>>Some of the symbols used for operations are insane.
>
>No, just unusual.  APL, on the other hand, is insane :-)

	I definately agree about APL (overstikes? definately the product
of a twisted mind (I know, limited symbols etc.)).  But, really guys, I
think that the syntax of C is not strange at all.  It all seems logical
if one has the mindset of an assembler programmer (I reserve the right to
restrict my generalization to VAX 11, MC68000, and, of course PDP-11).
Many of the C constructs (both source and object) mirror assembly, which
is very cool.  Also, I'd rather type

char foo(i, j)
int i, j;
{
}

than the "more readable"

FUNCTION foo(i: INTEGER, j: INTEGER) : CHAR
BEGIN
END;

and so on and so forth.