Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mstan!amull
From: amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Subject: Re: diffs for APL-11?
Summary: A familiar story...
Message-ID: <606@s5.Morgan.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 89 04:12:17 GMT
References: <1989Dec12.180556.20137@cs.rochester.edu>
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY
Lines: 24

In article <1989Dec12.180556.20137@cs.rochester.edu>, ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes:
> > Can you make available your changes to apl-11 to make it run on a Sun3?
> > I've played with it a little (the one from the 4.3 distrib tape) but
> > I've never quite gotten it to work...
> 
> No, I did a massive lint check and also reformatted the code with cb
> (or was it indent?). In retrospect maybe I shouldn't have done the
> latter, but my eyes really hurt looking at the code and I thought maybe
> Berkeley would take the updated version.

This is too close to home. I can't really go into specifics because
Arthur would kill me, but I've had a very similar experience with
our own interpreter and my brand new OS: SCO UNIX System V/386 r3.2,
especially the part about the source code hurting the eyes. If it
wasn't proprietary, there are parts of that source which would make
the Obfuscated C contest look like the 'Over-verbose COBOL contest'.
Also: I can't run the code through cb cause cb breaks when I try...


Do all APL interpreters get written by people with very personal
definitions of readability?

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt