Weapon that stays on the ground? (napalm, poision,...)

[AF]

BASIC is utter fail, C style syntax is the pinnacle of syntax design.

[rattle]

Agreed.

[Pxtl]

Agreed.

As someone who codes C# for a living, I have to disagree.

The word-based logical operators of Basic (NOT, AND, OR) are much more legible than the silly ||,&&,! stuff. Plus, the whole C/Basic/Pascal family of languages are hopelessly stuck in Von-Neumann architecture paradigm with some functional-programming logic badly grafted on.

Besides the simple fact that any staticly-typed language without a solid macro system will eventually frustrate your refactoring with it's limitations.

Either way, though, C++ is nicer than a lot of it's relatives.

[MadRat]

When I see || then I think piped output.
When I see && then I think "and do".
When I see ! then I think "not".
But that is all because of M$'s scripting.

What do those terms mean in C again?

[Kloot]

Logical OR, -AND, and -NOT (which you can #define to OR, AND, and NOT if word-based operators are your thing).

[MadRat]

Damn, that helps alot. Books on C are very cryptic for basic knowledge like that. From a personal viewpoint it looks like dogshit to read without the simple words in their place. I bet the languange would be a lot more simple than it looks if it just read simpler.

[FLOZi]

Then look at an online reference, say this one or that one or countless others

[knorke]

as it is offtopic anyway..

Code: Select all

#include <stdio.h> 
main(t,_,a) 
char *a; 
{return!0<t?t<3?main(-79,-13,a+main(-87,1-_, 
main(-86, 0, a+1 )+a)):1,t<_?main(t+1, _, a ):3,main ( -94, -27+t, a 
)&&t == 2 ?_<13 ?main ( 2, _+1, "%s %d %d\n" ):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_, 
t,"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l,+,/n{n+\ 
,/+#n+,/#;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l q#'+d'K#!/\ 
+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw' i;# ){n\ 
l]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#\ 
n'wk nw' iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \ 
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;\ 
#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')# }'+}##(!!/") 
:t<-50?_==*a ?putchar(a[31]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a == '/')+t,_,a\ 
+1 ):0<t?main ( 2, 2 , "%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a, "!ek;dc \ 
i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);
}

(not by me)

[Peet]

MinGW didn't like that.

[AF]

The C style logic operators are rooted in maths, with a few little changes e.g. && and not & because & is bitwise || because | is bitwise etc....

Basic AND OR NOT etc are rooted in english language and are aimed at being easier for new people to use. imo basic is somewhat of a mistake and VB .Net is a vain attempt to recover. imo MS should have ditched VB and focused on C#. I'm still not sure why some companies insist on VB .Net when C# is available.

[knorke]

MinGW didn't like that.

maybe disable some warnings or something?
it works for me and is kinda cool i think..