Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like language

"robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:20:21 +1100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[40 earlier articles]
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-13)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-13)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like compilers@is-not-my.name (2011-01-13)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like noitalmost@cox.net (noitalmost) (2011-01-13)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like compilers@is-not-my.name (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2011-01-14)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2011-01-15)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like compilers@is-not-my.name (2011-01-16)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:20:21 +1100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 10-12-040 10-12-043 11-01-005 11-01-009 11-01-027 11-01-031 11-01-037
Keywords: design

From: "Hans-Peter Diettrich" <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
> Now I wonder why APL then wasn't the big breakthrough, eliminating any
> possible clashes with natural languages ;-)


APL is a language that's far too cryptic.
It's very difficult to work out from code precisely what
the writer intended. Hence it's diffucult for someone else to debug.
It's often jokingly referred to as "write once and throw away".
[It was too hard to stick all those little labels on the keycaps.
Reading APL isn't too hard if you know how to look for idioms, but
it takes a while to learn. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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