I have to admit that you've got some valid points, but still, I think that there are some reasons for leaving the style of imperative programming mostly as it is: - At least I type way slower than I talk, which makes formulating whole sentences quite ineffective in comparison to programming in Java/ C# / AS2/ Whatever in a decent environment like Eclipse or VS.net. - For most people, it's not that easy to constantly formulate sentences that are really unamiguous and well formed. Here again, man's ability to interpolate the intended meaning from the context of the uttering comes to help in real life and will be sorely missed in programming.
There are certainly more points to make in this general direction, but seeing as I have some evening plans to attend to, I'll leave it at these and conclude with wholeheartedly agreeing that much is to be desired in most of todays computer languages when it comes to brevity and elegance. cheers and much luck with trying to get focused ;) till ps: Oh, and "gotoStore" should of course have been "go(store)" or similar ;) Cortlandt Winters wrote: > Hi Till. > > Thank you. > > Of course I count 227 instead of 155 characters which is about 150% > bigger and there still are things that you would need to do to cary the > state of conditionals throughout that you aren't doing like whether or > not Jim actually called. In fact a lot of information is getting lost in > the translation here and none of this yet has any of the verbose type, > import, interface, static, public, private, protected nonsense that I > was speaking of which makes me roll my eyes at Java and as2. > > Every time you concatenated a set of tokens into a function call like > "go to store" becomming gotoStore you illustrate the power of grammars > over functions and reinforce my point. Are you going to have 40 > functions to cover every destination parameter "store" and relationtype > "to"? > > It's not talking to the computer or making it seem like you don't need > to learn a new language, it is using the inherant power of grammar over > other constructs. Humans created natural languages as efficient ways of > communicating. It's just a matter of reusing what was developed there > and intelligently selecting various subsets that are easy enough to > automate. > > Thanks for responding though. I do really need to stop talking about > this and get back to work however. I apologise in advance if I at some > point become better focused and stop responding to this thread. _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
