Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!athertn!joshua
From: joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: The White Paper
Message-ID: <15131@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 8 Dec 89 18:11:28 GMT
References: <31904@cci632.UUCP> <3960004@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM>
Reply-To: joshua@Atherton.COM (Flame Bait)
Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 31

I said:    
| C is simple.  I understand how to write a compiler for it.  Even though I 
| never will, the fact that I could is very important.  It shows that the 
| language is understandable.

cricket@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM (Jiminy Cricket) replies:
> Whoa.  What?  I think you'd better take some time to qualify your terms.  To
> say that because it's easy to write a compiler for a language makes it "easy
> and straightforward" (for a programmer, anyway) is ludicrous.  

I was describing a rule of thumb, not causality.  I'm sorry if it sounded 
that way.  I was thinking of ALGOL type languages.  Take these as examples:
C, PASCAL, ADA, ALGOL-68, PL/I.  Those languages that are easy to write
a compiler for are easy to understand, and the reverse is also true.

This rule tends to break down for non ALGOL type languages like LISP, PROLOG,
SMALLTALK, and database languages.  

> To my mind, more abstraction brings with it both an "easier and [more] 
> straighforward" programming paradigm, but often at the cost of greater 
> compiler or interpreter complexity 

This is a good rule of thumb also, but it is not perfect either. 

> C, to many folks, is a nasty, grubby language.  

Surely we can find something more interesting to talk about then "my
language is better than your language". 

Joshua Levy                          joshua@atherton.com  home:(415)968-3718
                        {decwrl|sun|hpda}!athertn!joshua  work:(408)734-9822