Re: Fun with C

[KK6GM <mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com>]

On Apr 17, 12:35 pm, Elias Salomão Helou Neto <eshn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:15 pm, KK6GM <mjsi...@scriptoriumdesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:59 pm, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 4/17/11 8:26 AM, KK6GM wrote:
>
> > > > Wow and wow.  I've been writing C all my adult life and I didn't
> > > > realize this could or would happen.  I would have said that the
> > > > unsigned would be promoted to signed.
>
> > > > I'm going to include this example in my push to use Ada in our next
> > > > project.
>
> > > Be careful that there are no C savvy people around.
> > > You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of C basics!
> > > ("Stupid!")
> > > That lack is not (in their view, and it's their view that counts)
> > > a good start for asking for a different language.
>
> > > Had you read section 2.7 of K&R (or A.6), you'd have expected
> > > the result you got: arithmetic operators will convert their
> > > arguments following the rules of the C language definition.
>
> > Yes, I understand how the "stupid" argument works in the C community.
> > I'm going to ask some other programmers tomorrow and see how many of
> > them get this right.  I'm guessing our situation will be similar to
> > the situation at the OP's workplace, where presumably competent
> > programmers still got clobbered by this language-legal insanity.
>
> Most programmers are competent in their views. Few really are and it
> does not matter what is the actual language. For example, looks like
> you feel you are competent in C, but are you?
>
> "I would expect unsigned to int conversion" is just unacceptable!
> Someone has written a line of code without knowing what it does. Is it
> a language problem? Not that C is spectacular, but blaming the
> language here is not fair. Minimally competent C programmers do know
> about such conversions. If you don't you suck as a C programmer. If
> you suck as a C programmer, please do not try to advocate any other
> language over it, this _is_ stupid!
> - Show quoted text -

So, the spankings begin. :)

What is a competent programmer?  One who has made a good living using
the language for 30 years, with no complaints as to my competency?
That's my only claim.  Perhaps the programmers in the OP's
organization would make a similar claim.  I guess in some perfect
world we wouldn't need any of the myriad of checking and verification
tools and rules that people use to protect themselves from their
chosen programming language.

You are making a classic "CMM0" argument, where heroic programmers are
necessary to acheive semi-acceptable results.  You criticize those who
do not know some arcane language rule, when I think the real criticism
shoult be for a language, any language, that blows up on -2048/128.

C is a Steam Age language.  It served a purpose, but it is a sign of
unseriousness and immaturity in our industry that it is still so
widely used, that the terms "C" and "best practice" can ever be found
together.

I work at a company that uses a lot of very large and dangerous
machines for manufacturing.  They would not for a moment stand for
their machines to be as dangerous as C is.  Nor would their insurers
nor the various government organizations to which they must account.
It's not enough any more to say "Yes, C may silently rip the scalp off
of your head, or chop off your arm, but only if you don't know all the
rules and obey them without fail."  Are we to be forever stuck in the
year 1900, programming language-wise?

-2048/128 = 33554416 (or whatever your int size produces).  There's
little more to say.