Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/02/05/05:30:39
Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
>Sterten <sterten AT aol DOT com> wrote:
>
>> That's the way how they can get the source without macros.
>
>Not really. It's the way to get *a* source with all the macros
>replaced. But if you've ever actually looked at this kind of
>intermediate output, I hope you'll agree that it's completely useless
>as a readable representation of the source code. For one thing, the
>preprocessor will have replaced *all* macros, not just your syntax
>obfuscators. It'll also have copied in all the #include'd header
>files verbatim, and done some other things that you don't want to have
>in source code supposed to be read by humans.
Is there no way to get only my #include's replaced ?
Maybe by specifying them with uppercase like #Include or such.
Well, I could still delete those unwanted stuff with only little work.
>> I'd say: when you have to behave like a Roman there,then don't go to Rome.
>
>Nonsense. And rather chauvinistic, too. It's rather "If you don't
>like the way the Romans behave, maybe you shouldn't go to Rome."
That's what I meant.
>So, if you don't want to write code that looks like C, don't program
>in C. Nobody's forcing this choice of language down your throat,
>right? So if you don't like it, don't use it.
I try to avoid C, when I can.
Usually I use Basic, because it's easier to debug for me and
easier to get things working in the first place.
But C-programs run faster and are not limited to 64K , I can use inline ASM
(though I don't like ATT-syntax) .. so I have to convert
some (about 30% or such) of my Basic programs to C
>If you want Python or Perl, I'm reasonably sure you'll manage to find
I don't know these and too lazy to learn them.
And then, when I did, maybe later I figure out that I don't like them.
>them. Thank you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
>> >That is, when
>> >you work in a certain programming language, use the syntactic
>> >conventions of that programming language, even if facilities like
>> >macros allow you to redefine almost everything.
>
>> that reminds me to Don Knuth's programs.
>[...]
>> because he uses an own,unusual language similar to C but with some
>> special "macros".
>
>I think you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>That "C with some special macros" you're talking about is actually
>Knuth's own special programming tool "Web", which is actually not C at
>all, but Pascal, and intermixed with TeX for internal documentation.
too bad. So I assume it cannot be transformed to C.
That way his programs are for a rather limited audience,
not a good thing IMO for someone who publishes books about it.
>--
>Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
>Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
Guenter Stertenbrink.
- Raw text -