Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site SCIRTP.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!SCIRTP!ned
From: ned@SCIRTP.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <-21600@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 18:14:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.-21600
Posted: Fri Jul 12 18:14:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 05:31:41 EDT
References: <11434@brl-tgr.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr:-1143400:SCIRTP:-21600:177600:1392
Nf-From: SCIRTP!ned    Jul 12 18:14:00 1985


> Progams should be as language-independent as possible.  It shouldn't
> matter whether the program is in C, Pascal, Ada, or even the dreaded
> APL, but that it can be understood by *anyone* who needs to look at the
> program.  If you limit that *anyone* to "experienced C programmers",
> you're limiting the possibilities of that program.
> 
> Dan  /* comments are of course welcome */

I disagree.  If programs were written to be as "language-independent" as
possible, what kind of languages would we be using???  Wouldn't this have
the net effect of significantly slowing the evolution of computer language?

I mainly program in C and Pascal, but I'm very glad that I had the opportunity
to learn and use APL.  It is a unique language with many good ideas.  It is
not perfect, but then no language is.  It is not effective in all applications;
no language that I'm aware of is.  But I found it to be a refreshing, exciting,
and fun(!) way to solve problems.  Best of all, it made me a better programmer.

The short-term benefits of *everyone* programming in compliance with the
current popular semantic model are appealing, but the long-term results
would be to retard the research and development of other forms of human/
computer communication.  In light of the fact that many of today's problems
cannot be adequately expressed to a machine, this would be a grave mistake.

-- Ned Robie