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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11390f,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid11390f,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: randy@godin.on.ca (Randy MacDonald) Subject: Re: Programming language vote - results Date: 1997/10/21 Message-ID: <62idmb$htg$1@news.on>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 282207054 References: <343fbb5a.0@news.iprolink.ch> <343FD05C.8986A557@flash.net> <34428914.2D71D0F@ibm.net> <01bcd87f$7fefcf00$25a43a91@basil.omroep.nl> <34458CE3.507C@dynamite.com.au> <3444BFC6.794BDF32@druid.net> <34466EB4.3381@dynamite.com.au> <6275dt$agm$3@news.on> <344BCED0.2D51@dynamite.com.au> Organization: Godin London Incorporated Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <344BCED0.2D51@dynamite.com.au>, aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote: >Randy MacDonald wrote: >> So, where's the code? Sounds like a challenge. >No. Please. I'm begging. Thus you consider your security code a failure? >I've spent the better part of my professional >life trying to get rid of the "fastest gun in the west" mentality of >programming. Given that most languages have built in viscosity, this is probably a wise course. >"There are two ways to write a program: Either make it so complex, >there's nothing obviously wrong, or so simple that there's obviously >nothing wrong." The mathematical nature ("everything is either trivial or impossible") of software is, regrettably, still in the future. A middle ground still exists. >Hence my preference for Ada. When listening to C weenies - er - >enthusiasts talking about how their code is so tight, so efficient, and >above all so impenetrable that it's obviously superior to another >solution (in Ada so clear that "Any Fool could have written that"), This is the claim COBOL made also. I don't believe that one either. My impression is that if an Ada program is clear, it probably isn't being used for its intended purpose, i.e. an embedded program. > I have to take a dried-frog pill and count to 10. In my younger and more >foolish days, I was of a like mind. >Now I think that APL has a place, >but only in small, one-use throw-aways, We, and those of our clients who have used our "one-use throw-away" software for time now measureable in decades would probably differ on this. As one who has built these systems, the >and where terseness if vital (as >in downloading complex programs over low-bandwidth data links). If that were true, Java wouldn't exist. >Probably other, similar areas as well. I'm glad it exists, as I'd hate to > have to invent it! >I once made the mistake of lending one of these C Hackers my old copy of >"Structured Programming in APL" (a title that still leaves me gasping at >the Oxymoron), and he's now a confirmed APL enthusiast. The structure is in the data, and more recently in the code. A nice property of APL/J programs is that, where a structured look appears, for example, where a series of lines have parallel structure, the similarity can be factored out, leaving a series of individually unique lines. -- |\/| Randy A MacDonald | Bring me... BLUE PAGES!!!! |\\| randy@godin.on.ca | BSc(Math) UNBF '83 | APL: If you can say it, it's done. Natural Born APL'er | *** GLi Info: info@godin.on.ca *** | Also http://www.godin.on.ca/randy ------------------------------------------------<-NTP>----{ gnat }-