Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:szik5e8e6n4m$.dgyqh41b6k6b$.dlg@40tude.net...
...
>> I disagree strongly, likely because IDEs usually become only DEs for
>> heterogeneous sources in my real world: IDEs typically
>> lack reliable means of automatically mapping (possibly broken)
>> source to and from foreign layout, but layout becomes essential if
>> syntax is abandoned for readability. Moreover, I happen to work in
>> an environment that requires the use of editors (and terminals)
>> that happen to be available with a given foreign system. My work
>> can become rather difficult when programmers have relied on
>> "graphical" or "typographical" properties of some IDE, and not
>> plain old syntax.
>
> Statistically irrelevant. Probably there exist Ada programmers using
> typewriter without characters |, #, " (See Ada 83 RM 2.10). Don't care!

Well, I think you'll find a lot of Ada programmers that don't use an IDE at 
least part of the time. Me, for instance. (I've never found one that doesn't 
get in the way when editing -- and I built two of them during my career; I 
still use a circa 1986 MS-DOS editor for virtually all program editing.)

Assuming any particular display for a programming language is exactly wrong, 
because things change faster than the programming language could possibly 
change.

                            Randy.