"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further comment."
Lynn
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further comment."
Lynn
On 9/1/2025 11:39 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
comment."
Lynn
I learned C from the original K&R C book, about 1985 or so. Here is the second edition, the ANSI version.
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-2nd-Brian-Kernighan/dp/0131103628
Lynn
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
comment."
Lynn
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
comment."
Lynn
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further >>>> comment."
Lynn
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Nonsense.
It sucks due to design, not implementation.
Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further
comment."
Lynn
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 02:10:40 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> gabbled:
Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.
The C++ code will be in the libraries but the amount of code will be more
or less the same.
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
The concepts of "design" and "implementation" are tidy abstractions in the study of software engineering.Nonsense.I liked his reply to the question about the current state of softwareYes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
It sucks due to design, not implementation.
IN the practice of software engineering they are not separable.
W dniu 4.09.2025 o 04:30, Kaz Kylheku pisze:
The concepts of "design" and "implementation" are tidy abstractionsNonsense.I liked his reply to the question about the current state ofYes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
software today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
It sucks due to design, not implementation.
in the study of software engineering.
IN the practice of software engineering they are not separable.
BS! Behind every genius prog. or tool is some brilliant idea. That is
the first step of design. All engineering art require detailed and
aware design. If some body program in other way, then result can be
one: piece of c* .
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 02:10:40 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> gabbled:
Am 04.09.2025 um 00:20 schrieb Pierre:
In comp.lang.c Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Kernigan speaks. 83 and still teaching."
"The Rust believers are not going to be happy with the answer to one
question."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEb_YL1K1Qg
"At one point during the Q&A, his VPN fails. GlobalProtect. No further >>>> comment."
Lynn
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Yes, and a large part of it because it is written in C.
Five times the code as in C++ or Rust and the same degree of more bugs.
The C++ code will be in the libraries but the amount of code will be more
or less the same.
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is
a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality. Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than code that actually does something. eg:
swappable
swappable_with
destructible
constructible_from
default_initializable
On 04.09.2025 17:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is >> a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a >> new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality. >> Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the >> new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than
code that actually does something. eg:
swappable
swappable_with
destructible
constructible_from
default_initializable
Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
and the complexity a problem back then
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
On 04.09.2025 17:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is >>> a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a >>> new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality.
Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the >>> new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than
code that actually does something. eg:
swappable
swappable_with
destructible
constructible_from
default_initializable
Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
and the complexity a problem back then
Nobody is required to actually use all that cruft. It is still
possible to write C with classes using even the most modern C++
suite.
On 05/09/2025 16:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Nobody is required to actually use all that cruft. It is still
possible to write C with classes using even the most modern C++
suite.
Indeed.
Much of those sorts of things are useful for writing high-performance >general purpose containers and other such flexible libraries. For most
user code, you don't need more than a fraction of what C++ provides (but >/which/ fraction will depend on the user).
Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
and the complexity a problem back then
Nobody is required to actually use all that cruft. It is still
possible to write C with classes using even the most modern C++
suite.
WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still
contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.
On 2025-09-04 23:42, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still
contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.
As someone who's second computer language was APL, which I loved, I
reserve the concept of "syntax horror" for things like COBOL. I've heard
that one of the concepts behind the design of COBOL is that it should
allow managers to write programs, obviating the need for specialized programmers.
I've heard the same thing about assembly language, when it
first came out (I heard it third hand - I'm not quite that old).
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
On 04.09.2025 17:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:40:37 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> gabbled:
On 04.09.2025 10:36, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I'd love to hear his opinion of the designed-by-committee syntatic
horror that is modern C++.
You are probably speaking about the newer C++ standards, and also
not about the "C" contribution to the "syntactic horror". Right?
C's syntax might not be the best, but its relatively simple. C++ syntax is >>> a dogs dinner and gets worse everytime the steering committee farts out a >>> new version every 3 years with increasingly niche and obscure functionality.
Some C++ code now is virtually unparsable by the human eye and a lot of the >>> new crap are meta keywords that are compiler directives or hints rather than
code that actually does something. eg:
swappable
swappable_with
destructible
constructible_from
default_initializable
Thanks for clarifying. - I stopped my professional use of C++ with
this millennium. The last standard that came to my attention was
something like "C++0x/C++11" (IIRC, with move semantics, and some
such). While I understand the motivation for introduction of such
things I already found the syntax, the implications on readability,
and the complexity a problem back then
Nobody is required to actually use all that cruft. It is still
possible to write C with classes using even the most modern C++
suite.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 17:34:34 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
On 2025-09-04 23:42, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still
contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.
As someone who's second computer language was APL, which I loved, I
reserve the concept of "syntax horror" for things like COBOL.
[...]
While CODASYL might have claimed to business that COBOL would let managers write code, that was never the actual case. What the COBOL syntax did was permit /programmers/ to write code that mirrored the business processes
that the front-line staff performed. If an accountant computed sales tax
by multiplying the total cost by a fixed percent, the programmer could easily code that as
MULTIPLY TOTAL-COST BY FIXED_PERCENT GIVING SALES-TAX.
and the front-line staff could confirm (or deny) that /that/ was the process they followed.
While wordy, COBOL is still a Turing-complete language, and anything that you can do in C, you can do (granted, not as susinctly) in COBOL.
[...][...]
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 17:34:34 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
On 2025-09-04 23:42, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still
contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.
As someone who's second computer language was APL, which I loved, I
reserve the concept of "syntax horror" for things like COBOL. I've heard
that one of the concepts behind the design of COBOL is that it should
allow managers to write programs, obviating the need for specialized
programmers.
While CODASYL might have claimed to business that COBOL would let managers >write code, that was never the actual case. What the COBOL syntax did was >permit /programmers/ to write code that mirrored the business processes
that the front-line staff performed. If an accountant computed sales tax
by multiplying the total cost by a fixed percent, the programmer could easily >code that as
MULTIPLY TOTAL-COST BY FIXED_PERCENT GIVING SALES-TAX.
and the front-line staff could confirm (or deny) that /that/ was the process >they followed.
While wordy, COBOL is still a Turing-complete language, and anything that you >can do in C, you can do (granted, not as susinctly) in COBOL.
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> writes:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 17:34:34 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
On 2025-09-04 23:42, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
WRT C's contribution I agree that it's comparable simple, but still >>>> contributes not insignificantly to the "syntax horror". It might be
more an issue for folks who are also used to non-"C"-like languages.
As someone who's second computer language was APL, which I loved, I
reserve the concept of "syntax horror" for things like COBOL. I've heard >>> that one of the concepts behind the design of COBOL is that it should
allow managers to write programs, obviating the need for specialized
programmers.
While CODASYL might have claimed to business that COBOL would let managers >>write code, that was never the actual case. What the COBOL syntax did was >>permit /programmers/ to write code that mirrored the business processes >>that the front-line staff performed. If an accountant computed sales tax
by multiplying the total cost by a fixed percent, the programmer could easily >>code that as
MULTIPLY TOTAL-COST BY FIXED_PERCENT GIVING SALES-TAX.
and the front-line staff could confirm (or deny) that /that/ was the process >>they followed.
While wordy, COBOL is still a Turing-complete language, and anything that you >>can do in C, you can do (granted, not as susinctly) in COBOL.
With certain caveats. I.e. the COBOL compiler needs some way to link
to external assembler functions.,
Burroughs COBOL 68 compiler had the phrase "ENTER SYMBOLIC.". Source
lines after that were treated as embedded assembler until "LEAVE SYMBOLIC.".
The MCP Disk Defragmenter utility was written in COBOL 68.
The COBOL 74 compiler supported linking (binding) independently compiled modules
into a single executable, and the ICM was standard across all supported compilers. Most often COBOL74 would call BPL (Burroughs Programming Language)
functions to access MCP facilities not supported natively by COBOL syntax.
It sucks due to design, not implementation.
Just last night I was fighting with our local movie theater's website,
which required me to reload the page every time I hit "back", at which
point I'd have to re-navigate to the theater page.
On 9/7/2025 8:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
Just last night I was fighting with our local movie theater's website,
which required me to reload the page every time I hit "back", at which
point I'd have to re-navigate to the theater page.
It is hard to get the browser "back" button to work when there is a
state at the server side. In a bank, when you have transferred some
money to somebody, what should the "back" button do? Take the money back from another bank? Send the money again?
Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
no protocol for doing that.
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
I've heard that one of the concepts behind the design of COBOL is that
it should allow managers to write programs, obviating the need for specialized programmers.
The bog-standard COBOL CALL verb suffices for that, along with a
suitable linkage editor or linking loader https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cobol-zos/6.3.0?topic=statements-call-statement
Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
no protocol for doing that.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 22:20:48 +0000, Pierre wrote:
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Ken Thompson, when asked what OS he uses, replied that he has given up on Apple (the so-called “Unix”) and switched to Linux, specifically the Raspberry Pi.
Did anybody ask Kernighan what he uses?
On 9/8/2025 3:36 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Ken Thompson, when asked what OS he uses, replied that he has given up
on Apple (the so-called “Unix”) and switched to Linux, specifically the >> Raspberry Pi.
Did anybody ask Kernighan what he uses?
He was using an Apple laptop and was complaining bitterly how difficult
it was to get to the underlying unix based operating system.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:01:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/8/2025 3:36 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Ken Thompson, when asked what OS he uses, replied that he has given up
on Apple (the so-called “Unix”) and switched to Linux, specifically the >>> Raspberry Pi.
Did anybody ask Kernighan what he uses?
He was using an Apple laptop and was complaining bitterly how difficult
it was to get to the underlying unix based operating system.
Given that Apple seems to be moving away from the “Unix” name, sounds like
he might be following Thompson’s example soon ...
On 9/8/2025 3:36 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 22:20:48 +0000, Pierre wrote:
I liked his reply to the question about the current state of software
today:
"A lot of it sucks! Unfortunately, it's all too true."
Ken Thompson, when asked what OS he uses, replied that he has given up on
Apple (the so-called “Unix”) and switched to Linux, specifically the
Raspberry Pi.
Did anybody ask Kernighan what he uses?
He was using an Apple laptop and was complaining bitterly how difficult
it was to get to the underlying unix based operating system.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
no protocol for doing that.
The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just keep dynamically updating parts of its contents.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:43 this Monday (GMT):
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently
no protocol for doing that.
The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just
keep dynamically updating parts of its contents.
Then people would complain about being sent back to the search engine or
new tab page.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 17:34:34 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
I've heard that one of the concepts behind the design of COBOL is thatThere was a specific focus on “business” needs, as opposed to “scientific”
it should allow managers to write programs, obviating the need for
specialized programmers.
needs. So no transcendental functions, for example. And then what happens
in derivatives trading? You need transcendental functions, of course. Is
that not a “business” need?
Another feature omitted was dynamic string handling. And what comes along
but SQL databases, which quickly became an essential “business” need? But it turns out that the best way to interface to a relational database is to generate SQL query strings. Which COBOL could, even to this day, only do badly.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:43 this Monday (GMT):
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:13:11 +0300, Paavo Helde wrote:
Actually, the back button in the browser should be disabled when
clicking it would not make sense, but it looks like there is currently >>>> no protocol for doing that.
The way to disable it would be to never reload the entire page, just
keep dynamically updating parts of its contents.
Then people would complain about being sent back to the search engine or
new tab page.
There is a way to set a “modified & unsaved” flag on the page so that, when the user tries to leave it, they get an “Are you sure?” warning.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 70:50:26 |
| Calls: | 13,725 |
| Files: | 186,960 |
| D/L today: |
4,341 files (1,091M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,344 |