Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:25:50 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <20250415152550.00007634@yahoo.com>
References: <vtbc6o$1te2o$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtbhjv$24api$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtbn2k$293r1$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtc19j$2kqlj$1@dont-email.me>
	<87a58mqt2o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vtc7mp$2q5hr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtcqf6$3j95s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtdh4q$b3kt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtf7fe$1qtpg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtgfuf$31ug1$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250413072027.219@kylheku.com>
	<vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me>
	<vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me>
	<ilprvj5jbpcbr7fts2kdotfb81763u652g@4ax.com>
	<vtlbja$3f46a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:25:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5499b78c3538bab4e99dadb9a4c4fcee";
	logging-data="3860244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+8xQMuTXnPgMwJtjEng689T1bYO04gAIQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KWMgfreGj63yjde1FlhaV0MoqZg=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)

On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:15:06 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 15/04/2025 05:57, Rosario19 wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:18:39 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:  
> >> (While there's some "C" stuff in here it contains a lot of non-"C"
> >> samples for comparison. So [OT]-sensible folks may want to skip
> >> this post.)
> >>
> >> On 14.04.2025 12:16, bart wrote:  
> >>> On 14/04/2025 05:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote:  
> >>>> On 13.04.2025 18:39, bart wrote:  
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {  
> > 
> > C for loop is great, but all can be workarounded with goto label  
> 
> For this specific example (ignore 'let' for C), please explain why it
> is better than, say:
> 
>      FOR(i,1,36) {
> 
> This is 99% of my for-loops. Is it the same reasoning why I have to 
> write 'break' in 99% of my switch-blocks?
> 
> There's something about this group which celebrates these annoying 
> language characteristics which are only useful or meaningful in a
> tiny minority of cases: see how wonderful it is for 1% of the time?
> 
> That must surely justify them being both a PITA and dangerously error 
> prone in the vast majority of cases!

I regularly use two languages with "proper loops" - Matlab/Octave and
VHDL (Ada-like syntax). When writing loops in these languages, I don't
feel any extra convenience over C. Nor do you suffer from reduced
flexibility relatively to C, except very rarely.
In other words, I don't care.

And it's not because I can become accustomed to anything. E.g. I am
using tcl for a long time. I never stopped hating most of its syntax,
including for loops.

I probably will care (i.e. dislike) language (or C macro) with the
syntax shown in your last example, but less intensely than tcl.