|
|
|
|
|
|
by las_cases
4096 days ago
|
|
|
> The take aways are that Zed doesn't understand C and hasn't read the C standard. This statement is quite unfair. I have read the code from Mongrel2 and I've learned things which completely eluded me in the past. Have you considered that he is actually a human being which can be surprised at how an old book can present aspects never noted before? Just because he hadn't thought about that particular language horror side effect doesn't mean he doesn't understand C. C can be manipulated in horrific ways, such as a psychopath can absolutely horrify you. That doesn't mean you don't understand life for example. And no, he doesn't mock people who read the standard. The discussion was entirely about something else. He proposed an improvement on how to handle strings and how the original K&R code should only be looked at from a didactic POV and not production level quality. That is what I saw in that thread. |
|
|
Allow me to quote for you, since this comment[1] was downvoted to the bottom of that thread and maybe you missed it:
Ahhh the "undefined behavior" trope, whereby a C "expert" who's memorized a standard trots out the abstract machine to justify his point. An abstract machine that doesn't actually exist and that no computer actually functions as.
>Just because he hadn't thought about that particular language horror side effect doesn't mean he doesn't understand C.
No, really. Somebody who isn't aware of undefined behaviour can't claim to understand C. The fact that he has now changed his position on the entire language (now advising people not to use it, advice I broadly agree with BTW), indicates that he wasn't aware of these things prior to that discussion.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8834947