Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

[Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net>]

Y2KYZFR1 wrote:
> 
> Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bvvjqj$4fb$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
> > Richard Heathfield <dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
> > on comp.lang.c:
> > > Larry Hazel wrote:
> > >> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> > >>> directly to C.  Don't let me stop you, though.
> > >>
> > >> C?  Easy to read?  You have got to be kidding.
> >
> > > Compared to the other languages in this crosspost? Damn right it's easy to
> > > read! :-)
> >
> > > I mean yes, okay, I know what you mean. Any sufficiently advanced IOCCC
> > > entry is indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
> > > IOCCC entries!
> >
> > I find C harder to read than Java, and easier to read than C++. I
> > don't know about Ada, as I've never seen it. But C and C++ are a
> > breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp. They look like
> > C looked while I was still a BASIC programmer: a random jumble of
> > punctuation marks.
> 
> you have obviously never even seen a Python program, since it does not
> use any punction marks. It ( and Lua ) are about as close to
> executable pseudo-code as you can get. Python ( and Lua ) is
> "comprehendable" by anyone that can read english for the most part. C
> and C++ are not.
> 
> Python enforces rules about formatting even, so everyones Python code
> HAS to conform to the same formatting rules, thus contributing to even
> more "readibility"

This brings in question the meaning of "readability". I'd say 
readability is for those practiced in the language, not "civilians". 


--
Les Cargill