> The thing that sticks out for me is that there's a bug in that code - a syntax error no less - and none of the C programmers commenting seem to have spotted it. (hint: read the memmove line a bit more closely)
That typo was introduced in Revisor's transcription; it doesn't appear in the original. I checked when I first read his comment, 8 or 9 hours ago. It hardly seemed worth mentioning; typos happen and it had nothing to do with his argument.
> I don't think you need much more evidence that the syntax is confusing.
Someone unfamiliar with the language introducing a one character typo during a character-by-character transcription from a book is evidence that "the syntax is confusing"?
The point is that the code is hard to understand. In this case it's a bracket misplaced, so the compiler will pick it up immediately, but if it's a misplaced +1 or index then you won't notice until you get hacked with a buffer overflow.
Now if you put each argument on it's own line, or use reasonable variable names - something that C programmers seem to fight against - neither of those bugs happen, because you can just look at the code and see the problem straight away.
That typo was introduced in Revisor's transcription; it doesn't appear in the original. I checked when I first read his comment, 8 or 9 hours ago. It hardly seemed worth mentioning; typos happen and it had nothing to do with his argument.
> I don't think you need much more evidence that the syntax is confusing.
Someone unfamiliar with the language introducing a one character typo during a character-by-character transcription from a book is evidence that "the syntax is confusing"?
What an odd yardstick to use.