From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/22 Message-ID: <4lgrpv$o25@solutions.solon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 150853959 references: <01bb2dd0.a8395e00$c6c2b7c7@Zany.localhost> organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover) reply-to: seebs@solon.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert Dewar wrote: >Any programmer who cannot read an informally written standard like the >ANSI C standard has in my view a serious lack of capability in understanding >written specifications. These standards are definitely written for >programmers, and any competent programmer should be able to read them >once they have a reasonable introduction (I am not claiming that tpyical >programmers can learn a language from the standard). Hey, everybody, look, Dewar and I agree on something! I made one attempt at learning C++ from some sort of introductory text. It was hopeless. I learned what of it I know by reading the _Annotated Reference Manual_, which was quite legible. >By informally written here, I am making a contrast with a formal >standard, written in formal mathematical style, which can indeed >be somewhat inaccessible to programmers not well trained in >mathematics. I am of the opinion that most mathematical texts are poorly written, because used English can be precise enough for much of what they want to say. I find it offensive that textbooks use little squiggly bits when the equivalent sentence would hae been just as precise. On the other hand, I'm a great fan of chatty proofs, so take this with a grain of salt. >P.S. Who do you think reads these documents at "compiler vendors". I will >let you in on a secret: the answer is "programmers"! You have obviously never used a C compiler. It is quite clear that the people writing them are communicating with the people reading the standard through interoffice mail. :) "Hmm. Does 'shall' mean you do it or you don't do it?" -s -- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach. C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really! Unsolicited email is not welcome, and will be billed for at consulting rates. The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html