|Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (Axel Kittenberger) (2001-11-29)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (Tomek Zielonka) (2002-01-24)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-01-28)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (Toon Moene) (2002-01-28)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (Toon Moene) (2002-01-30)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (2002-01-30)|
|From:||Toon Moene <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||30 Jan 2002 20:41:13 -0500|
|Organization:||Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands|
|References:||01-11-135 02-01-103 02-01-148|
|Posted-Date:||30 Jan 2002 20:41:13 EST|
> Our esteemed moderator wrote:
> > [Back in the 1970s, languages with extensible syntax led to write-only
> > code with no two programs using the same syntax. Have they solved that
> > problem? -John]
> I thought Perl was the solution to that problem ?
> "There's more than one way to do it" (TM).
> [Perl's syntax, irregular though it is, doesn't change from one program
> to the next. -John]
Ah, I was too brief here, I see. What I meant is that a language that
encourages more than one style has programmers adopt different idioms.
This results in hard to read programs, not so much because any single
program is hard to understand (when you figure out which idiom the
programmer used), but because different programmers have different
writing styles, and you, the reader, has to switch between them.
Of course, even worse is a programmer who can't decide on a single
style. You bet - I've colleagues like that ...
Toon Moene - mailto:email@example.com - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.