Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Write-only languages (was Re: scheme) Message-ID: <56569@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 14:03:35 GMT References: Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 26 Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu In article adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) writes: >> Scheme seems to share much of its syntax with >>Lisp, which tends to be a "write only" language. >Hardly true of Scheme/Lisp. The only language that might be truly >said to possess this characteristic is APL, and only because of its >infernal character set. (Because of this, APL is the one language >I've encountered in my life that I've never _wanted_ to master.) >Substituting each APL operator with a descriptive name would certainly >go a long way towards making it less of a "write-only" language. Actually, FORTH is also an extremely write-only language. I also find that Lisp is somewhat write-only when complex programs are programmed in a funcational style. I suspect that languages are write-only more because they lack names for local variables or intermediate results that because they have unusual characters representing functions. I mean, who would want to write out "iota" or "rho" every time you wanted an array? :-) :-) Food for thought, so your brain doesn't starve... -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs ----- +=+ Nails work better than screws, when both are driven with hammers +=+