Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site cal-dbb.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!zoro
From: zoro@fluke.UUCP (Mark Hinds)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: language choice: Pascal, c, or Forth
Message-ID: <2592@cal-dbb.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 20:41:14 EST
Article-I.D.: cal-dbb.2592
Posted: Mon Jan 13 20:41:14 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 00:40:45 EST
References: <1368@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 29

In article <1368@brl-tgr.ARPA> BUDDENBERGRA@usc-isi.arpa (Rex Buddenberg) writes:

>   2) You need to be able to read the code produced by others.
>Code is written once but read a hundred times.  I learned
>to program by reading others' code, and you want as much
>help from the language as there is.  My personal experience
>is that neither C nor Forth make it here; Pascal comes
>closer, but Modula is better.

	Your "personal experience" doesn't match mine. C is just
	as "readable" as Modula or Pascal, else mindless compilers
	could not generate code from it. 

	It is possible to write difficult to understand code in ANY language.
	The use of meaningful names, good source formatting, Module/File
	and Function headers, and source comments is what makes source
	more understandable.

	I have never used or seen Forth, but if it provides for the above
	practices then it is possible to write understandable code in it,
	even if you have to comment each source line with the appropriate
	high level description, as in assembly language.

	Mark Hinds
-- 
____________________________________________________________
Mark Hinds                     {decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver!--\
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.                 {sun,allegra}!---> fluke!zoro
(206) 356-6264                 {ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam!--/