Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!idallen
From: idallen@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: expert-friendly: are long names a waste of time?
Message-ID: <6071@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Nov-83 21:00:17 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.6071
Posted: Thu Nov  3 21:00:17 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Nov-83 09:17:02 EST
References: <570@minn-ua.UUCP>, <6061@watmath.UUCP>, <1367@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25

I do not like, and am not suggesting, English as a computer language.

"Compile_pascal_program" and "debug_pascal_program" as command names are
only coincidentally reasonable because of the structure of English.
We only need to use the actions and objects of English, not the
ambiguities of English structure, emphasis, and syntax.

Even if you told me that the command to compile a Pascal program was

    program_pascal_compile

I could still tell you what the command to debug it was.  I could also tell
you how to compile FORTRAN or COBOL programs, or how to delete such programs.
(Just substitute the obvious word in the reasonable place in the template.)

Making the command names longer does help; I have to remember fewer things.
Just knowing the above command name and the new words "debug", "delete",
"FORTRAN" and "COBOL" gives me nine working commands.  If I learn a word
for another language (e.g. MODULA), I instantly know twelve working commands.
If I then learn a new verb (e.g. edit), I instantly know sixteen commands.

This cross-product command naming scheme saves me from memorizing arbitrary
names for every combination of verb and object.  Saves brain space.
-- 
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo