🚀 go-pugleaf

  > .>> Oh?  Have you ever seen C code written by a former FORTRAN programmer?
  > .>> If so, by how many?  Universally you will find:
  > .>>    1) Very short, illegible variable and function names, with the
  > .>>       first character wasted (all integers must start with 'i', don't
  > .>>       you know)
  > .>>    2) No use of structures
  > .>>    3) No linked lists or trees
  > .>>    4) No whitespace
  > .>>    5) Lots of illegible "creative" formulas
  > .>>    6) No comments

MM> .My error, and it is genuine, is that I omitted "self-taught"; i.e., I
  > .was referring to those FORTRAN programmers who taught themselves C in a
  > .vacuum.

No, your error is in assuming that the FORTRAN programmers that you know
are indeed typical.  I'm a self-taught Asm, FORTRAN, BASIC, COBOL,
Pascal, C, etc. programmer.  I started doing FORTRAN using FORTRANSIT on
an IBM 650, and my FORTRAN code doesn't have any of the characteristics
that you outline above.  (I _was_ constrained to 7 character variable
names, since that's the language syntax.)

Good technique has always been good technique, and bad technique will
always be bad technique.  There's far more obfuscated C code than
unreadable FORTRAN code.  Many C coders seem to take a perverse pride in
generating virtually unreadable trash that often borders on being
unmaintainable.

And, of course, there's an "Obfuscated C" contest, but no corresponding
obfuscated Pascal, FORTRAN, COBOL, etc. contest.

(Your apology is accepted...  <~> )

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com