tps@sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) (07/03/86)
In article <6874@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >[discussion about redefining C with the preprocessor] >... If you can read English you can read Pig Latin, >but nobody would tolerate documentation written in Pig Latin... This is such a great analogy, with Henry's permission I would like to coin the term Pig C to refer to C code (like the Bourne shell) which effectively redefines the language. Then when someone posts some bit of obfuscutia you can flame them saying, "This code looks like Pig C to me." --Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry
lambert@mcvax.uucp (Lambert Meertens) (07/04/86)
In article <249@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> tps@sdchema.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) writes: > In article <6874@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... If you can read English you can read Pig Latin, >> but nobody would tolerate documentation written in Pig Latin... > This is such a great analogy, with Henry's permission I would like to coin > the term > > Pig C > > to refer to C code [...] which effectively redefines the language. I like this. Also, if someone writes pseudo C code, you could call it Pigskin C since it's only skin-deep (like, Pigskin Algol). -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/07/86)
> This is such a great analogy, with Henry's permission I would like to coin > the term > > Pig C > > to refer to C code (like the Bourne shell) which effectively > redefines the language... Sounds good to me! -- Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/08/86)
In article <249@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> tps@sdchema.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) writes: >In article <6874@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>[discussion about redefining C with the preprocessor] >>... If you can read English you can read Pig Latin, >>but nobody would tolerate documentation written in Pig Latin... > >This is such a great analogy, with Henry's permission I would like to coin >the term > > Pig C > >to refer to C code (like the Bourne shell) which effectively >redefines the language. You haven't got the analogy quite right. Pig Latin, after all, is a variant of English, not of Latin. So I would recommend you call such things "Pig Pascal", not "Pig C". Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
bob@Juliet.Caltech.Edu (Robert S. Logan) (07/08/86)
Wait a minute, it's Pig Latin, not Pig English. To keep the analogy maximally analogous, shouldn't it be Pig B or Pig BCPL? -- Robert S. Logan Campus Computing Organization, 158-79 Caltech, Pasadena, CA, 91125 818-356-4631 rslogan@caltech.bitnet bob%juliet@cit-hamlet.arpa ...!ucbvax!bob%juliet@cit-hamlet.arpa The above opinions are licensed (not sold)...
tps@sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) (07/10/86)
In article <2025@brl-smoke.ARPA> bob@Juliet.Caltech.Edu (Robert Logan) writes: >Wait a minute, it's Pig Latin, not Pig English. To keep the analogy >maximally analogous, shouldn't it be Pig B or Pig BCPL? Assuming "Pig Latin" is English modified to look sort of like latin, to be truly analogous you have to have a multiplicity of terms: Pig Algol -- C modified to look like Algol (sh source) Pig Pascal -- | Pascal (Byte magazine source) Pig Ada -- | Ada Pig RootBoy -- | anything non-portable I still like to bend the analogy and use "Pig C" to describe all of the above as a group. --Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry P.S. Just :-) JC
shoat@glasgow.UUCP (07/11/86)
> In article <249@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> tps@sdchema.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) writes: > > In article <6874@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >> ... If you can read English you can read Pig Latin, > >> but nobody would tolerate documentation written in Pig Latin... > > This is such a great analogy, with Henry's permission I would like to coin > > the term > > > > Pig C > > > > to refer to C code [...] which effectively redefines the language. > > I like this. Also, if someone writes pseudo C code, you could call it > > Pigskin C > > since it's only skin-deep (like, Pigskin Algol). > > -- > > Lambert Meertens > ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP > CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam This could start a craze. Truly appalling code which offends even the hardened C programmer could be called "Pigshit C".