On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:52:26 -0800, Paul D. Fernhout pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com wrote:
In the case of both C and C++, one should not discount the wight of AT&T,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wight
Indeed. :-)
Well, it is also true one big issue is that an Algol-like syntax with operator precedence (times over plus) is taught in K-12 school. That is a big advantage for a computer language to build on that, even as that precedence is arbitrary and Smalltalk is more consistent.
I learned operator precedence in programming, not in math. I'm sitting among college graduates--in the IT department--right now who give me a blank stare when I say "operator precedence". One guy knows it has to do with parentheses. My favorite (tongue-in-cheek) response was "That means the user comes first." (And as a professional programmer, my rule has always been: Don't count on your ability to remember operator precedence. C++ has, what, 17 levels of precedence?)
I guess my point is, I don't consider "operator precedence" to be a significant advantage. Smalltalk works the way I think; I have to actively (admittedly easily at this point) allow for operator precedence. And I don't bury my Smalltalk code in parentheses, yeah!
And you are right on how Java seemed an easy move for C++ programmers.
The prevalence of "C-like" syntax has convinced me over the years that C programmers are wusses. They apparently won't try anything that doesn't look like something they already know.
===Blake===