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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-06 06:26:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news.stealth.net!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml From: Ted Dennison References: <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <7ciqhtk6595rgr8qsc92d793ubl1l47saj@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:25:44 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:25:44 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:10422 comp.lang.ada:8224 comp.lang.awk:2816 comp.lang.clarion:21212 comp.lang.java.programmer:74040 comp.lang.pl1:809 comp.lang.vrml:3550 Date: 2001-06-06T13:25:44+00:00 List-Id: In article <7ciqhtk6595rgr8qsc92d793ubl1l47saj@4ax.com>, Roedy Green says... > >On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:25:58 GMT, Ted Dennison >wrote or quoted : >Creating terseness with meaningless short identifiers is not what I There are some circumstances where non-identifier based terseness hurts. For example, its quite possible in C to make many short "if" statements much more terse using the "?" operator. Its also quite possible to "tersify" many loops by putting *all* their code inside the parentheses of a "for" loop (the comma operator helps here). This may be physically shorter, but most C programmers I know would not consider it easier to understand. Both of these techniques are outlawed in many C programming standards. >meant. Terseness by needing the fewest number of syntatic elements >with the greatest simplicity in their connections, is valid. OK. I can agree with that. But I think you are talking about *complexity*, not tersenes. They may often go hand-in-hand, but there's a *big* difference. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com