One thing that seems relevant to me here is that several of the examples given 
to show the "non-intuitiveness" (whatever that means) of languages are what I 
would class as exceptions : if the compiler re-orders my (correct) code and 
makes it perform in a way that I did not intend then that is a bug in the 
compiler - if you have to define the language in such a way that such things 
are allowable then your language is flawed. Languages should support the 
programmer not the machine!

"intuitive" is either an empty description or one that is so highly 
personalised as to be meaningless. It falls far more into marketing than 
science.


http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2002/08/nipple.html seems relevant here, 
methinks.

L.

Reply via email to