🚀 go-pugleaf

On 27 Sep 1995, Matthew Kennel wrote:

> ????  Look at all the i = i++ et cetera garbage.  Ok that's not 
> the syntax, but semantics.  But if you jettison C and inherited
> C-like semantics, what part of C syntax is worth keeping?  

Garbage? Sure, it's a little strange at times, but I'd much rather have 
neat and concise expressions. If it looks confusing at times, then avoid 
writing it -- it's that simple. That said, I think that the behavior 
should be more strictly defined for certain things. That doesn't mean 
that the semantics are bad.

What I like about C is its ability to express a lot in very little as 
well as for its simplicity. (I also like Lisp for similar reasons...) At 
its best, C is beautifully consistent. What *is* it in C's semantics and 
syntax that you object to (ignore pointers for the moment... because they 
aren't very safe, you probably wouldn't want them in a "modern" language)?

> No.  Eiffel.  Sather.  

Sorry, haven't seen either, but I'll look into it. Evidently, one of the 
biggest problems is the acceptance of these languages, though.

- Trung