Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

["Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net>]

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote...
> In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@comacast.net> wrote:
> : "Larry Hazel" <lhhazel@otelco.net> wrote...
> :> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> :>
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> :> > directly to C.
> :> >
> :>
> :> C?  Easy to read?  You have got to be kidding.
> :
> : I, on the other hand have no
> : idea how to read Chinese.  But I don't exclaim "you've got
> : to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
> : to read.
>
> Possible...  "readable", then "easy to read", then "possible
> to read". Some of Chinese ideographic content is easy to remember if
> you learn to distinguish the pictures.  Doesn't mean that Chinese
> writing is easy to understand, e.g. because of context dependence.
> Now what does "read" mean?

What are you arguing about?  For somebody who never saw Latin alphabet,
and only read Chinese all his life, what's easier to read?  It has been
already mentioned, readability, or, if you so desire, easiness to read,
is in the eye of the beholder.  There is nothing else to talk about.