Re: specifications (was Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier)

Dave Lloyd <dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I still don't see why a language standard need be instantly
>understandable to any user of the language.


Well, it sure would be nice if programmers understood their languages.


> ...In my experience, *most* programmers have never even seen a copy
> of the standard let alone read it.


This is partly because standards are expensive. I believe ISO
typically charges several hundred dollars for a copy. The Ada 95
standard is available for free via ftp, but I don't think that's true
of any other programming language. (It took a lot of
negotiating/bullying from the US DoD to get ISO to agree to this. The
copyright in the front of the Ada 95 standard says people can copy it
freely, but the copyrights in the front of most language standards are
quite restrictive.)


Of course, it's partly because language standards tend to be
incomprehensible. A textbook on the language tends to be a lot easier
to read, but that's partly because it oversimplifies (i.e. it's
wrong). I don't mind if programmers don't understand certain
features, and don't use those features. But in too many cases,
programmers *do* use features, but have no idea of the subtle
ramifications. The programmer gets away with certain things because
the compiler is not (yet) smart enough to take advantage of some
obscure optimization-freedom.


>As with so many things, we need a hierarchy and I propose:
>...


I agree. But I'm not happy about it. If a textbook leaves out some
obscure/complex rule, then either (1) the rule is irrelevant, and
shouldn't be in the language in the first place, or (2) the programmer
will eventually trip over it.


- Bob
--

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