Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!tci!spicer From: spicer@tci.UUCP (Steve Spicer) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <521@tci.UUCP> Date: 27 Mar 91 14:49:48 GMT References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1114@tetrauk.UUCP> <271@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar26.170848.15936@visix.com> Reply-To: spicer@tci.bell-atl.com (Steven Spicer) Distribution: comp Organization: Technology Concepts Inc. Sudbury MA Lines: 29 In article <1991Mar26.170848.15936@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim >Showalter) writes: > > I'll be damned: it only took the C community 25 years to realize > something that has always been intuitively obvious to language > designers/trainers--that English language words are superior to > cryptic symbols. > >It all depends on the application, and how you define "superior." I'd >rather do vector calculus with "cryptic" symbols than as word problems, >for example :). > Amanda is right, and no smiley is needed. If English language (what about German, French, ...) words are superior to "crytic symbols" then just think about what might have been possible had only Newton, Gauss, Russell (or in our own field, Knuth and Dijkstra), etc. not been diverted from working in "natural language" terms. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Steven Spicer/spicer@tci.bell-atl.com Is your design so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, or so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies? -- suggested by a quote from C.A.R. Hoare