|
> If humanity has forgotten how to read C code (and lost all knowledge of it), how are they going to read this documentation you seem to prefer? Sure but are they going to remember something like, weird precedence rules (See: &), undefined behaviour, etc. Just because they want to reimplement a specific, small, program does not mean they want to relearn several languages. What you're saying could easily blow up from 'how to code C' to 'reading the GCC / Clang compiler source code to figure out how a specific UB was implemented, which the program in this specific case falls into', which I'm sure nobody wants to spend their weekend doing, implementing something like `xz` could simply be a midpoint in their destination, they don't want to spend weeks digging up COBOL. Have at least some consideration for the human element, jeez. Documentation, specifically _mathematical_ documentation, is more fault tolerant than either psuedocode or actual code. At any other time, I would agree with you, but where archivism is concerned, I do not. |