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: 103376,f34f1a1939dc0c40
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de (Georg Bauhaus)
Subject: Re: conditional compilation
Date: 2000/08/02
Message-ID: <8ma4lf$4g8$1@news-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 653773949
References: <87d7jvp3qq.fsf@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
 <wccwvhzbnwc.fsf@world.std.com>
Organization: Gerhard-Mercator-Universitaet - Gesamthochschule Duisburg
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-08-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff (bobduff@world.std.com) wrote:

: I don't like so-called literate programming for the same reason I don't
: like C macros.  In order to understand the code, you have to imagine the
: actual output of the macro preprocessor.

Agreed if literate programming  was about code, but it is
not.  It is about English, about explaining algorithms in
English (or your preferred human language), about not having
to worry about the outcome of the processor because the
processor takes care of that. Ideally, though.

If the language has facilities to express your design the
way you think about design, good.  Literate programming
helpers can help with this.  I'm exaggerating, but ideally
you would not have to worry about the outcome of
preprocessors, compilers, optimizers, anything.

Of course you should and Knuth, supposedly having coined
the words "literate programming", has written one of the
books about inputs and outcomes, and that you shoul know
how to worry about them.