On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l...@odewijk.nl>wrote:
> IMO readability is very hard to measure. Likely things being where you > expect them to be, with minimal confusing characters but clear "anchoring" > so you can start reading from anywhere. > > If someone could write a generative meta-language we can then ask people > to do "text comprehension" tasks on the packed data. The relative speeds of > completing those tasks should provide a measure of readability. > > I don't like anyone arguing about differences in readability without such > empirical data. (it's all pretty similar unless you design against it I > guess) > > XML is actually surprisingly readable. JSON is a lot more minimal. I find > its restrictions frustrating and prefer using real JAVASCRIPT OBJECT > NOTATION wherever possible, like INCLUDING FUNCTIONS and INCLUDING 'THIS' > REFERENCES. Harder on parses, but why would you write your own anyway? (No, > your language is not archaic/hipster enough not to have a parser for a > popular notational format!) > What part of the Chomsky hierarchy do you not understand? What part of running computations on untrusted data which amount to Turing machines sounds like a good idea? The trivial DDOS, or the oh-so-amusing use as part of a distributed computing service? What dangers of multipass computation on potentially ambiguous data do you think are worth the extra connivence? And let's not forget the bugs that context-sensitive grammars invite. > > I think that's the most useful I have to say on the subject. > > _______________________________________________ > The cryptography mailing list > cryptography@metzdowd.com > http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >
_______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
