Re: Programming language vote - results

[Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>]

FRS DES wrote:
> 
> In article <344BCED0.2D51@dynamite.com.au>, Alan E & Carmel J Brain
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
> 
> > Now I think that APL has a place,
> >but only in small, one-use throw-aways, and where terseness if vital (as
> >in downloading complex programs over low-bandwidth data links). Probably
> >other, similar areas as well. I'm glad it exists, as I'd hate to have to
> >invent it!
> 
> Those of us who spend our full time working on multi-megabyte APL
> programs, sold to Fortune 500 companies, written entirely in APL, disagree
> with your notion of its "Place".

Why is it in APL? Because at the time the first version was written,
that was the most appropriate choice of language available, and because
no single upgrade was worth a re-write from the ground up? If the code
was to be written from the start  NOW with the tools now available,
would APL be the best choice?
I will willingly admit that in some cases at least, the answer to that
last may well be YES. But I'd be interested in knowing why. I'm not
being facetious or sarcastic, I genuinely want to exploit another
professional's expertise (for free)

I admit the idea of multi-megabyte APL rather boggles my mind. The
configuration management alone must be an interesting challenge on such
a large project.

>  I woulf be the first toi agree that not
> every task is best accomplished in APL (or any other single language), but
> it is an excellant tool in a *wide* range of situations. Properly written
> and commented, it need be no more obscure than any other programming
> language.  I grant that it is possible to write particularly obscure APL,
> but have you looked at the output of the "obfuscated C contest" lately.
> Idiocy canb be committed in any language.

Concur. It can be done in Ada too, it just requires a higher order of
idiocy. I guess that's the nub: that good APL requires a really good (ie
gifted) programmer, whereas a mediocre (not bad, just not gifted) one
can write good Ada that's at least as efficient, readable and more
maintainable.
 
> Modern APL supports such control structures as IF/ElseIF/Else/Endif;
> For/EndFor/ Select/Case/Case/EndSelect; Repeat/Until; and Do While/EndDo
> which can aid the programmer in creating clear code, and can often improve
> run-time speed as well.

Thanks, I didn't know this. (ie that modern dielects of APL had this
capability, not the worth of same). What's the situation vis-a-vis
Standards, ie compatability between brand-X APL and brand-Y?
-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  
                    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale