RE: Clever UNIX/C Constructs

Sorry, I was exaggerating a bit for rhetorical purposes and using the
standard joke form of substituting the effect for the cause.  After all,
there _is_ an obfuscated C contest.

People do try to cram as much stuff as possible into one expression to show
off.  I doubt that was Kernighan and Richie's intent.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jackson [mailto:richardjackson@richardjackson.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:14 PM
> To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Clever UNIX/C Constructs
> 
> 
> That isn't why it was put there.  Go to the comp.arch 
> newsgroup and ask
> Dennis Richie.  The problem was that the original systems 
> were programmed
> with a teletype machine.  The character set was limited to 5 
> bit baudot,
> they were VERY slow, and it was painful to enter code.  They 
> allowed short
> identifiers and terse (not to say cryptic) operators because it was so
> painful to use longer ones.  This was not a language designed 
> to be hard to
> use.  It was designed to be possible to use on the limited equipment
> available to the guy that designed it.
> 
> Search the web for a history of C and Unix written by 
> Thompson and Richie.
> That will clear up this point.
> 
> I am not defending these constructs in these days only defending the
> integrity of the original authors and standing in opposition 
> of revisionist
> history.
> 
> Richard Jackson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com 
> [mailto:owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com]On
> Behalf Of Joel Fritz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 1:28 PM
> To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: Clever UNIX/C Constructs
> 
> 
> In my introductory C class we had test questions like that 
> and really vile
> stuff with pointer arithmetic.  C syntax is very powerful and 
> terse, but
> since there's often a way to say the same thing (compiler 
> translates it to
> same executable code) more clearly, it seems to me that part 
> of the reason
> for the terseness is to allow people to show how clever they 
> are at others'
> expense.
> 
> I like the increment (postfix only) operators and the combined
> assignment/increment operators, though.
> 
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---