Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems
Message-ID: <20131@alice.att.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 02:29:04 GMT
References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1114@tetrauk.UUCP> <271@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <jls.669588928@rutabaga> <20106@alice.att.com> <jls.670044262@rutabaga>
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 17

In article <jls.670044262@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

> P.S. For extra credit, pose a credible argument in FAVOR of code
>      that is hard to read.

Why on earth should I do that?

Or are you making the implicit assumption that "easy to read" means
"looks like English" ?

If English were intrinsically unambiguous,
there would be no poetry.  But I don't want
formal descriptions of algorithms to be poetic,
thank you.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com