I would invite you to read this, ahem, "alternate" view of the history of programming:
http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html Especially these two entries: 1936 - Alonzo Church also invents every language that will ever be but does it better. His lambda calculus is ignored because it is insufficiently C-like. This criticism occurs in spite of the fact that C has not yet been invented. 1970 - Niklaus Wirth creates Pascal, a procedural language. Critics immediately denounce Pascal because it uses "x := x + y" syntax instead of the more familiar C-like "x = x + y". This criticism happens in spite of the fact that C has not yet been invented. How could I possibly improve upon that? On 13 July 2010 16:44, Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Indeed the for loop is also not very readable - at least it is c-like > > and once you know the c-like loop definitions you can read it in all > > languages that use that style. > > > > BTW: Java already allows this: > > for (Object object : list) > > { > > } > > which is more readable (although that style has it's limitations - you > > can't manipulate the current index). > > > >> The underscore requires a guess, but > >> if you know what a map function does and have ever used one in any > >> language, it's not too great a leap to guess. > > > > It needs more explanation than any short adequate keyword. This is a > > reason why so many people hate Perl (me too). > > This just illustrates the point I'm trying to make. So you're okay > with the ':' special character but the '_' in the Scala example > requires too much explanation? If you don't understand a map function > or a for loop, neither is going to be very readable, but at that point > the deficiency isn't within the language syntax. > > I'll grant you that the underscore represents a concept which is > expressed using different characters in different languages, but > you're admitting that one reads better than the other simply because > of your bias toward c-like languages. Those coming from a more > functional background may have the opposite opinion. Does that make > either style quantitatively better? Software developers are generally > flexible and intelligent people, and perhaps you're being a bit > obstinate about their inability to understand programming languages. > > -Lyle > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
