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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:46:14 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.pascal.misc,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <c3f14h.bln.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <b72f5d8d-0cea-4d5c-bf28-beeb32f349b2@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <b72f5d8d-0cea-4d5c-bf28-beeb32f349b2@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a649146$0$32679$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jul 2009 17:46:15 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 964c49d7.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=oYWn7Xng_?iJ00P1S40fZgA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbi_ecdohc6Ikg;9OJDO8_SKfNSZ1n^B98ijE5EUZdHI;G`
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:331 comp.lang.ada:7179
 comp.lang.modula3:57 comp.lang.pascal.misc:303 comp.programming:11894
Date: 2009-07-20T17:46:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tm schrieb:

> That is exactly the area where Ada left the path of Pascal. Pascal
> was designed to be easy to implement. Nicklaus Wirth had good
> reasons to keep the implementation simple. He once said (IIRC):
> 
>   What can be parsed easily by a compiler can also be
>   parsed easily by a human and this can be an asset.
> 
> He probably did not use exactly this words, but they hopefully
> describe his intentions.

A human who has parsed some part of a program is far away from having
understood the part of the program:  Many concepts expressed "easily"
in "simple" languages hide the fact that a complex combination
of simple things needs to be studied (and made "conventional"
or idiomatic) in order to arrive at an understanding of what
is really going on, and what is intended, due to the combination.
Sometimes these lengthy combinations of "simply" expressed things
are equivalent to a simple builtin of less "simple" languages.