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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776
X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku)
Subject: Re: English SUCKS, Chinese is the only language you need!!
Date: 1997/11/19
Message-ID: <650kf8$smt$1@helios.crest.nt.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 290919641
References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <34722BF5.5B6D@le.ac.uk>
 <34733BEC.991E4298@itsnet.com> <34738872.783@gsg.eds.com>
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.misc
Date: 1997-11-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <34738872.783@gsg.eds.com>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <nospam@gsg.eds.com> wrote:
>Matt Corey wrote:
>> 
>>   C:  The power and functionality of assembly language with the
>> usability and readability of assembly language.  ;-)
>
>That's on a good day; the C preprocessor has less power and
>functionality than any macro language I've used in decades. And some C

That's probably a good thing. The current preprocessor is abused enough as it
is.  Because it's not too complicated, one can reasonably wade through some
of the worst abuses.

TeX is a powerful macro language; ever try to debug those important ``include''
files that come with the distribution? Aaaaargh... The problem with macro
languages is that something can undergo so many confusing levels of expansion
that it becomes difficult, if not nearly impossible to understand what is going
on.

Consider that the compiler for Plan 9 C actually has a _simplified_ preprocessor
(with respect to the requirements of ANSI C).

>constructs are more arcane that assembler language. 

Which ones? I would vote for the possibility of side effects causing undefined
behaviors unheard of in assembly language. That has more to do with the way
a construct is used. Still, to me that is the single worst aspect of the C language,
and one of the least poorly understood by the average joe who fancies himself
a programmer. It's amazing how often in comp.lang.c we get some buffoon who claims
that his compiler is incorrectly translating some expression that obviously violates
the rules with respect to side effects.

>> Also, it's Ada, not ADA.  That's the people who approve your
>> toothbrushes.  :-)
>
>Yes, but see below.
> 
>> in Tcl or Awk.  
>
>Shouldn't that be AWK, since it's named after the authors?

Touche! :) And TCL is also an acronym, is in not? Tool Command Language or some
such thing.