[makach]

I can read that.

I don't think it is gibberish. It's code and in order to read that code you need to understand the language, and to understand language you need learning and experience.

Maybe it can be useful for learning, but if you have to use such tool, I suspect you won't understand it anyway - so in a way it is more a gibberish-to-gibberish translator.

[tuveson]

I disagree. The conventions for declaring arrays, pointers, and function pointers are all idiosyncratic. In C, the type is always to the left of the variable being declared. Except for arrays, which have part of the declaration to the right. And except for pointers, which need to be affixed to every item if there are multiple declarations. And except for function pointers where you need to wrap the variable name like (*name). Individually I can wrap my head around these exceptions, but putting all of them together, it's just hard to read.

[Brian_K_White]

It takes a pretty smart person to do that. Which is pretty confusing.

How can such a smart person not not understand how all things that are possible are not all equally good?

The fact that both the compiler and you can parse that doesn't make it a good way to document or convey meaning or intent.

C is chock full of inconsistencies and ambiguities that are only disambiguated by essentially being a human compiler and maintaining the same parsing state-machine manually in your head to know what any given "(" actually means or does. As a self-proclaimed fluent C linguist, you know this better than most.

All coding involves that of course but all implimentations are not equally unhelpful.

The cpu and some people can read the binary itself. They just need to know the cpu's opcodes, documented right in the datasheet that anyone can read.