Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!jls From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: named parameters and Message-ID: <1991Jun30.220517.23778@netcom.COM> Date: 30 Jun 91 22:05:17 GMT References: <1991Jun30.1034.2615@canrem.uucp> <1991Jun30.174120.17703@netcom.COM> Distribution: comp Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} Lines: 26 rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes: ]>How about if we say A is a language which has enumeration types and ]>named parameters, and B is a language which does not? Would that be ]>sufficient? Well, not really. There are a host of other things that A has the B does not that are all intended to increase readability. The two you list are just a small subset. ]>How about if I write a little piece of code to transfore the code from ]>(1) into an unreadable mess? Let's see, it would strip comments, ]>reduce all whitespace to a whatever is minimal for the language, and ]>rename all definable tokens to a form like A0001, A0002, A0003, ... Well, first of all, this would then yield a program written in language B. ;-) Secondly, if you have to go through that much effort to de-readability-ize language A, then you are basically arguing FOR my claim that it takes work to write badly in A. -- *** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 **** *Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects* *of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/* *reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. *