----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Covill" <dcovill .at. san D.O.T rr.com>
To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [NF] Why have case sensitive language.
> At 01:20 06/12/03 -0700, Chet Gardiner wrote:
> >Why not build languages that are attractive and intuitive to normal people
> >rather than going out of one's way to make them non-english and difficult to
> >read?
>
> In other words, you prefer English words, like IF and ENDIF, to brackets or
> braces, because they're easier to read for those not expert in the language.
> Not an unreasonable position - in fact it was the main reason for the
> creation of COBOL.
>
No, because we've been "programmed" as human beings using language to more
easily recognize plain words than cryptic symbols. Especially us older human
beings. If one trained kids in this country from the age of 3 or 4 in "C" as
well as English, then the syntax and grammer of C would be as "intuitive" to
them as English. The part of the discussion that I was responding to was my
impression that someone didn't like VFP because of its "verbose" and free form
nature.. (It takes fewer characters to write {} than IF ENDIF). I was also
responding to an argument for case-sensitive, strong data typing and declaration
requirements (which I don't agree with).
> >I guess part of it is that I'm an applications programmer -- I did low level
> >stuff - machine code, assemblers, C -- and hated it. I also hated Cobol and
> >Visual Basic and Clipper for many of the same reasons. They just got in
> >the way
> >of implementing the grand designs in my head.
>
> Woops! I thought you just said you liked English words instead of symbols,
> but now you say you hated COBOL! Why? It has an excellent, clear,
> up-at-the-front-of-the-program description of the data structures, and does
> not use funny characters to bracket things. How does that "get in the way"?
>
That's how it got in the way with Cobol. One would have to spend 75% of
programming time on the data division before being able to write a line of code.
Contrasted with VFP: One can build tables quickly and start prototyping.
Also, I hate ALL compilers. There's no good reason for them any more (if the
language is clear enough). This is why VFP can't be tightly typed, right? It's
interpreted.
Let the computers do the work that they're good for! Computers can't find logic
errors -- people can.
> IMO, there is no "perfect" programming language, nor is there any language
> that is good for all types of programs. The main thing a language needs,
> besides some reasonable power, is a consistency in design. It is NOT
> important that it be readable by folks who don't know the
> language. <g> It is important that those who do know it are able to write
> clear, concise programs that solve the problem. VFP qualifies, so does C,
> and so do/did COBOL and FORTRAN. ADA and PL/I did not.
>
This is true, there is no "Perfect" programming language.
Over the years I've decided that there are two basic language requirements.
Low-level language (C, Assembler, etc) for writing the tools (OS, Drivers,
higher level languages). High level languages with minimal restrictions for
writing the applications -- VFP is the best available at present for my
purposes.
Just my HO.
> Dan Covill
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Chet Gardiner |
