The first picture isn’t what people write, even though it’s technically compilable, it’s not what C is.
The second is a normal syntax, pretty simple to understand if you write enough code.
C is very simple language at it’s core, and it allows for it to be used in a very complicated systems.
I find the C type syntax turgid. It’s fine for the most basic types, but the name-in-the-middle style doesn’t scale at all, and it’s not hard to understand why later languages separate name and type, no matter which side of the name the type goes on.
I find Rust easier to read in that regard, even though picking <> for generics was likely done to be familiar for C++/Java types rather than easy to parse. (See also: the bastion of the turbofish)
Yes, C syntax is easy understand
I’m a Perl programmer. This C syntax is fucked.
The first picture isn’t what people write, even though it’s technically compilable, it’s not what C is.
The second is a normal syntax, pretty simple to understand if you write enough code.
C is very simple language at it’s core, and it allows for it to be used in a very complicated systems.
Were you trying to post examples of it being easy or do you actually find those hard?
I find the C type syntax turgid. It’s fine for the most basic types, but the name-in-the-middle style doesn’t scale at all, and it’s not hard to understand why later languages separate name and type, no matter which side of the name the type goes on.
I find Rust easier to read in that regard, even though picking
<>for generics was likely done to be familiar for C++/Java types rather than easy to parse. (See also: the bastion of the turbofish)This is why you don’t write C, after a while this looks normal and sane