Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Long messages -- long modules - (nf)
Message-ID: <747@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Dec-83 15:13:16 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.747
Posted: Fri Dec 16 15:13:16 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Dec-83 00:25:16 EST
References: <974@ucbcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica
Lines: 39

Imposing an ARTIFICIAL limit like a screen size limits your available
semantic domain.  You may get the Gettysburg Address onto one screen, but
you certainly won't get the Constitution even with 66 line screen.
Perhaps we should add another line to the header:

Information-Density: 5.8 wspp  (worthwhile sayings per page)  :-)

I agree that we should put more semantic content into our subjects, but
that tends to make longer subjects, and then the poor (nf) people complain
about subject truncation.  I have a solution for this also.  Notesfiles
systems should borrow some of the fancy flexname compaction algorithms
floating around in net.lang.c and compact subjects as they come onto their
system.  Instead of seeing something like

Subject: IMPORTANT: imminent nuclear attack on residents of - (nf)

they could have the much superior

Subject: IMT: imtncratkonnrssoffNYC - (nf)

Really folks, all of this 6 character identifier/short subject/one screen
per article cybercrud is not reasonable.  It's like saying that I'll refuse
to marry anyone over 5 ft. tall.  (My wife happens to be 4'9"--luckily I
didn't mistake quantity for quality.)  Hooray for everything that is the
length it ought to be, whether identifier, article, subject, or wife.
Hooray for those who try not to impose artificial limits on humanity, such as
Berkeley, the designers of Ada (with respect to identifiers), the
non-designers-of-notesfiles, and the wonderful people (who deserve more
praise than they get, especially the ones for whom it is difficult) who
take the trouble to spell and use grammar such that people don't have to
guess what they mean, for if people have to guess what you mean you can
never say anything unexpected, or they won't guess right.  And if you never
say anything unexpected, what's the point of wasting everyone's phone
money? 

I don't expect an argument on this, but I could be pleasantly surprised.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall