Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!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: 29 Mar 91 03:43:15 GMT References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1114@tetrauk.UUCP> <271@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar26.170848.15936@visix.com> <521@tci.UUCP> Sender: news@Rational.COM Distribution: comp Lines: 24 >>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. The last time I looked, APL was a VERY symbolic language. It has also been described as a WORN language (Write Once Read Never). Going down the path of pure symbolic notation not only hasn't proven out, but it becomes absurd when you consider the ramifications: am I to have N banks of keys on my keyboard to have little symbols for employees, stacks, oranges, and any other object that happens to pop up while programming? If we grant the validity of extensible languages, in which user-defined types are indistinguisable from pre-defined types, then there is essentially no limit to the number of first-class citizens we would need symbols for. Clearly this is unworkable, so perhaps the idea of having a symbol for everything should be scrapped and replaced with the idea of having STRINGS for everything, since strings ARE infinitely descriptive. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software engineering, in which case I've borrowed them from incredibly smart people.