From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ADDR_WS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 12 Dec 92 14:34:42 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh@uunet.uu.net (Fergus Jam es HENDERSON) Subject: Re: FORTRAN bug(was Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?) Message-ID: <9234801.7294@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> List-Id: obry@flash.bellcore.com (Pascal Obry) writes: >I like Ada because you can *read* it. And this seem to be one of the most >important thing about a language. With goods choices for the identifier, you >can read an Ada progam like a text, you don't have to translate what you read. > >You write a program one time, but how many time you read it ? When learning a foreign language, there is a critical point at which you cease translating from the foreign tongue into your own and back again, and start to *think* in the foreign language. The same is true of programming languages. After a very short span of time, you start to *think* in terms of the constructs that your programming language offers. Once this point is reached, using symbols instead of words makes very little difference to the readability. Indeed the more verbose form may often be less readable. We all learn how to read mathematical equations - would you prefer that they be spelt out using "plus" instead of "+", etc.? If you want a language where programs read like text, try COBOL. Personally I believe that many common programming language constructs are better expressed symbolically. -- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own .signature file!