From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c42ac518eba0bbe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: frsdes@aol.com (FRS DES)
Subject: Re: Programming language vote - results
Date: 1997/10/29
Message-ID: <19971029004201.TAA04321@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 285653263
References: <01bce1bf$5c2baaa0$95b66bcf@dkelly.ark.com>
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <01bce1bf$5c2baaa0$95b66bcf@dkelly.ark.com>, "D.H. Kelly"
<dkelly@nanaimo.ark.combull> writes:

>_______________________________
>I prefer to use APL but I have long ago realized that it is beneficial to
>spread it out a bit rather than use very complex 1 or 2 liners. It might
>make it possible to figure the program out in a couple of minutes rather
>than hours - especially if properly commented. APL is great for getting
>things done concisely and effectively but that is no excuse for obscurity.
>The delight many take in writing one line recursive programs, etc, actually
>turns others off so that they miss the real usefullness of the language.  
>-

I agree.  I never write one-line loops or recursive functions -- there is
no good reason to do so.  If there were, in a particular case, I would
probably add 4-5 lines of comments explainging what the fn did and why. 
APL is terse, compared to manyn other languages, but well written APL is
rarely as ters as the language theoritically permits.

              -David E. Siegel
               Software Developer, Financial Reporting Software (FRS)
               FRSdes@AOL.COM