On 1/10/2013 7:23 PM, Thomas Berg wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that a programming language is for the benefit of the
programmer, to be least "hindered" in the coding.
It should help the coding and minimize both syntax pondering and keystrokes.
A programming language should not have a role of disciplining the programmer.
That should be done outside of the language, whether it be through a human
review or using an automatic tool.
That way the programmer could with the least effort construct a correct program. If the
program is not correct the additional effort caused by that is not exceeding what would
be caused by a "disciplining" language in the same case.
Note that a bad programmer makes bad programs regardless of the language he
uses.
If I take REXX as an example, although it has its limitations and rough edges, it have 4 important advantages IMHO:
1. It lives up the principle of "least astonishment" in syntax.
2. Its functionality and syntax is oriented towards the end goal of the code
effort.
3. It lives up to the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
4. It minimizes the keystrokes for the programmer.
Agreed. But there are some issues with REXX.
1. It's bloody slow! I recently ported a language that's just as simple,
more powerful and up to two orders of magnitude faster!
2. The lack of a module system is a DRY obstacle.
3. It's difficult to write external packages in a high-level language
without jumping through a lot of hoops.
Best Regards
Thomas Berg
___________________________________________________________________
Thomas Berg Specialist zOS\RQM\IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
