Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| A Plain English Compiler danrzeppa@gmail.com (2006-02-17) |
| Re: A Plain English Compiler torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-02-17) |
| Re: A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (2014-10-24) |
| Re: A Plain English Compiler martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2014-10-27) |
| Re: A Plain English Compiler ak@akkartik.com (Kartik Agaram) (2014-10-27) |
| Re: A Plain English Compiler kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-10-27) |
| Re: reading and writing, was A Plain English Compiler monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2014-10-28) |
| From: | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:46 -0400 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | 06-02-122 06-02-125 14-10-005 14-10-008 14-10-009 14-10-010 |
| Keywords: | design, Cobol |
| Posted-Date: | 28 Oct 2014 22:20:13 EDT |
> Re COBOL, I am fairly sure that the point of making it look like stilted
> English was not that they'd thought it'd make it easier to program, but
> that it'd be possible for non-programmers, e.g. auditors, to look at the
> code and figure out what it did. -John]
I think the better solution to this problem, nowadays, would be to
transliterate the source code into plain-english.
This has been done fairly successfully for formal proof in proof
assistants, so I assume it shouldn't be too hard to do for your average
programming language, tho maybe it might be useful/necessary to tweak
the source language to make the transliteration more readable.
Stefan
[I wouldn't disagree, but do remember that COBOL was designed over 50 years ago. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.