Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programming languages

Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk>
Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:42:05 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[41 earlier articles]
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de (Georg Bauhaus) (2012-06-08)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-06-08)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-06-08)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin ehog.hedge@googlemail.com (chris dollin) (2012-06-09)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin mal@wyrd.be (Lieven Marchand) (2012-06-09)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2012-06-10)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2012-06-10)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin blog@rivadpm.com (Alex McDonald) (2012-06-10)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-06-11)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin torbenm@diku.dk (2012-06-11)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2012-06-11)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-06-11)
Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programmin robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-06-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:42:05 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-03-012 12-06-013 12-06-014
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 11 Jun 2012 02:09:00 EDT

On Thursday 07 Jun 2012 at 18:21, "Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson"
<johann@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Another point to make. Why do we assign from right to left? Is it in
> any way natural? What's wrong with
>
> a + b --> c "a plus b assigned to c"
>
> instead of
>
> c <-- a + b "c becomes a + b?"
>
> The more I think about it, I believe the former construct is a bit more
> natural since we read from left to right. However, I'd want to see or
> work on a non-trivial project in such a language to make up my mind.


It sounds like you want COBOL, which has:


MOVE A TO B


ADD A TO B GIVING C


Or, if you want it the other way around:


COMPUTE C = A + B


You can also say:


ADD A TO B


which puts the result in B. On the other hand:


MULTIPLY A BY B


puts the result in A!


Then there's:


DIVIDE A BY B


(or is it "DIVIDE A INTO B"?)


My point is that by trying to be more "natural" and follow
English language rules, rather than a concise and consistent
set of rules, COBOL ends up with something verbose
and inconsistent.


--
Martin


STRL Reader in Software Engineering and Royal Society Industry Fellow
martin@gkc.org.uk http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/ Erdos number: 4
G.K.Chesterton web site: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/
Mirrors: http://www.gkc.org.uk and http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc


Post a followup to this message

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