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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5af5c381381ac5a7
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <briang000@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada requires too much typing!
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 20:49:09 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <htscku$1lt$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <4bfd19ba$0$2362$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <htjce2$31g$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 00:48:30 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="8fh9upQM2sUsdhH8G2SnPA";
	logging-data="1725"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184huqakmwyEm5qVoiNQVna"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
In-Reply-To: <htjce2$31g$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WLKmQ2iQqgzeJ/XxPfPZIy0ZqTI=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12151
Date: 2010-05-29T20:49:09-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Peter C. Chapin wrote:
>>
>> However, the argument that I see some people putting forth on the 
>> Scala group
>> is that conciseness is good because it saves typing. I really can't
>> understand that. How hard is it to type?
> 
> The important point is that in the real world, code is written once, but 
> read many times. I'm sure this is just as true with Scala as it is with 
> every other language. So saving typing at the cost of making it harder 
> to read is a false economy. Any project where money is involved should 
> take that into consideration.
> 
> As Preben Randhol put it, "Saving keystrokes is the job of the text 
> editor, not the programming language."
> 
Forget text editors, saving keystrokes is the job of the computer.  And 
I've got just the computer for "Rex":  a Sinclair ZX-81.  Each key on 
the (chicklet) keyboard has a (BASIC) keyword.  Rather than typing out 
G-O-T-O, you only type G and the computer fills in the rest.  It's also 
context-sensitive, so you get the minimum typing to get the program you 
want (as long as you're not an experienced typer and type out the 
keywords anyway).

Better yet - a computer I used in college had a hexadecimal keyboard, 
where you typed in machine code.  Think of it:  no verbosity, no 
"comments", no carriage returns; just raw hex.  What could be more 
"efficient"?

--Bg
-- If writing programs were more important than reading them, we'd be 
programming with invisible ink.  We wouldn't need a monitor.  We 
wouldn't need to save the source code - compile it and you have the 
executable/object, what more do you need?