Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 03:24:22 GMT References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1114@tetrauk.UUCP> <271@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <20106@alice.att.com> Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 22 >> No shit! Most C++ is indistinguishable from line noise. >> Ada, properly written, looks like an English language >> description of the processing being performed, with the >> added advantage that it also executes. (There is no need >> for pseudo-code, or even much need for comments.) >That was the rationale for Cobol too, in the 1950s. >It didn't work then either. Define "work". There are more lines of COBOL out there than anything else, so it must have worked for somebody. Secondly, I think the goals of readability WERE satisfied by COBOL--the problem is that everything ELSE is screwed up in that language. P.S. For extra credit, pose a credible argument in FAVOR of code that is hard to read. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."