At 12:34 06/12/03 -0700, Chet Gardiner wrote:
>No, because we've been "programmed" as human beings using language to more
>easily recognize plain words than cryptic symbols.
Not exactly, Chet. It's because the language we learned doesn't use
"cryptic" symbols. In fact, the word "cryptic" is a value judgment - all
written language is symbols - you're just distinguishing between symbols
you like and those you don't.
>Especially us older human beings.
Quite true. <g>
> If one trained kids in this country from the age of 3 or 4 in "C" as
>well as English,
Well, sure, but so what? The short summary of this is, "I find languages I
have learned easier to use than those I have not." No surprise there, nor
any insight either.
I guess the reason I'm debating with you is that I think you are confusing
your personal preferences with good language design. Good design requires
consistency, which may result in features/decisions that go against our
preferences. There are good things I don't like, and bad things I do like
(like white chocolate caramels, for instance <g>). But your not liking it
doesn't automatically make it a bad language.
Dan Covill
©2003 Dan Covill |
