int *j = &i;

   int* j = &i;

Stroustrup wrote something somewhere where he explained that int* a; is more appropriate for use in C++ because C++ is supposed to be more focused on types, and int * a; is more appropriate for C because of something about C's philosophy, but I can't remember what. I wish they would have changed the syntax for C++, but I guess he couldn't have while still keeping C++ a superset of C.

edit: found it: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#whitespace

"A ``typical C programmer'' writes ``int p;'' and explains it ``p is what is the int'' emphasizing syntax, and may point to the C (and C++) declaration grammar to argue for the correctness of the style. Indeed, the * binds to the name p in the grammar.

A ``typical C++ programmer'' writes ``int* p;'' and explains it ``p is a pointer to an int'' emphasizing type. Indeed the type of p is int*. I clearly prefer that emphasis and see it as important for using the more advanced parts of C++ well."

    #include <stdio.h>
    void eg(int i) {
        int *j; // "j is a pointer and (hence) *j is an int"
        j = &i; // "Put the address of i into *j? Yup"
        *j = *j + 1;
        printf("%d\n", *j);
    }
    int main() {
        eg(4);
    }

To address your second confusion, just keep in mind that strings are char arrays and an array's name is actually a pointer. Again, I find this very straightforward.

    I really see very little room for confusion here.

Yes, if you know about declaration follows use, it makes sense.

Yes, if you "keep in mind that strings are char arrays and an array's name is actually a pointer" then it makes sense.

You can get by by knowing to avoid some constructs.

If you know how the c compiler works, pointers make sense.

If you know C then you know C.

But when you're new to the language, you don't know these things and that's what this part of the thread is discussing.

Another responder wrote:

    The key is that * is part of the type of the
    declaration, not of the variable; an int* is
    not an int.

    int* c, d;

> I don't understand how you reach that conclusion. You might understand it, I don't see how you can say there is very little room for confusion.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I wrote "I see very little room for confusion" not "There is very little room for confusion". I tried to make it clear that I was talking about my personal experience; and I was talking about my personal experience since I was hoping it would help, not to defend the syntax of C.

Sometimes a particular point of view allows you to understand something; in some cases it makes the previously mystifying point "trivial" or "obvious". I am sorry that the POV that helped me so much does not help you at all.

The point of my earlier post was to describe strong reasons for people to have trouble with pointers.

Do you mean to reinforce that the language is not beginner-friendly, or are you really asserting that makes the language poorly-designed? If it's the latter, you should really at least explore some other factors before making the conclusion. It seems to me that it's a relatively minor distinction once you know it, so from a design perspective that may simply be a tradeoff for some other advantage.

    Do you mean to reinforce that the language is not
    beginner-friendly, or are you really asserting that
    makes the language poorly-designed? 

I think poor grammar is poor design - i.e. part of the type affects both variables (int), the other part doesn't (star).

The other issue is use of star to in one place to mean create reference, in others to mean dereference. That was the focus of my first post.

    from a design perspective that may simply be a
    tradeoff for some other advantage.