Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!VUCTRVAX.BITNET!PETERSC0
From: PETERSC0@VUCTRVAX.BITNET.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: "Clear, simple languages"
Message-ID: <8705280131.aa03894@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 28-May-87 01:21:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: SMOKE.8705280131.aa03894
Posted: Thu May 28 01:21:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 30-May-87 00:40:01 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20

> From: arpa%"jperry@sri-unix.arpa" 27-MAY-1987 22:48
>      It is interesting to note that you list Lisp, Bliss, and FP in the
> "clear, simple language" category that you imply I am supporting.  Actually
> I find Lisp, Bliss, and FP to be abominations.  Their simple syntax is
> a misleading disguise for they lead to programs whose semantics are
> virtually unintelligible.

    Hmmm...  It seems to me (philosophically speaking), that almost any
language can be either readable or nonreadable depending on the style of
the person doing the coding and on the familiarity of the reader with the
language.

    Pascal enforces a (very) few rules of style, as does C.  I can write
things in either language which are readable or unreadable depending on
my intent.  My lisp has had to be readable for classwork, but I have seen
a lot of strange-looking code out there.

    Doesn't it all depend on the coder in the final analysis?

-Chris