Re: simple vs complex languages

bear@sonic.net
12 May 2003 01:43:47 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: simple vs complex languages tmk@netvision.net.il (2003-05-06)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages George.Russell@cis.strath.ac.uk (George Richard Russell) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages torbenm@diku.dk (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-14)
Re: simple vs complex languages bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-05-15)
Re: simple vs complex languages lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-05-15)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-16)
Re: simple vs complex languages dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2003-05-16)
[24 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: bear@sonic.net
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 May 2003 01:43:47 -0400
Organization: ...disorganized...
References: 03-04-095 03-04-112 03-05-006
Keywords: visual, tools
Posted-Date: 12 May 2003 01:43:47 EDT

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


Post a followup to this message

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