Re: simple vs complex languages

Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:


> I really think it is a pity that no language offers a fancier
> interface than plain textual files, typed thru an editor. The syntax
> directed editors of the late 1980's are gone.


There's a reason why they're gone. They were absolutely miserable to
use. They presumed to dictate the order in which you wrote things and
what kind of text you could put as place-holders for things you hadn't
written yet, and got in people's way. They existed, briefly, because
pointy-haired bosses could be convinced to buy them "so that your
programmers *can't* make syntax errors!" But they don't exist today
because even pointy-haired bosses aren't usually complete idiots. When
a tool is universally despised and the people forced to use it are
less productive than the people who aren't, it becomes a problem that
some other person will sell them a *different* kind of snake oil to
cure.


I would object vehemently to any programming language whose source
code had to be stored in a format that might be obsoleted by the next
version of an HTML standard or the next version of a proprietary text
editor. So far, source code for a given program has a history of
lasting, usually, far longer than either HTML versions or editor
versions.


Bear

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.