[Tfug] Language choices

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Stephen,

--- Stephen Hooper <stephen.hooper at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >   APL actually isn't terribly bad when it
> comes to
> > > > punctuation.  The problem is you need an APL
> > > > typeball to use it!  :-/  If you replaced the
> > > > symbols with ASCII tokens, it wouldn't be bad
> > > > at all.  (though crappy for my needs!)
> > >
> > > Is your complaint with non alphabetic
> characters?
> >
> > My gripe is about "languages" that use punctuation
> > that isn't normally "spoken".  E.g., it is
> *natural*
> > to say:  "A equals B times 3 minus 5"
> > So, the +-*/= etc. carry no cost (in terms of
> > conveying their presence to the listener).
> > OTOH, the parens around, e.g., (3-5) are not
> > obvious from that textual rendering.   And, if
> > you are NOT computer literate and don't realize
> > the significance of them, their omission can
> > result in a miscommunication.
> >
> > For example, when I am "proofing" PCB layouts
> > (best done as a two member team), I need to make
> > sure the other person understands the
> characteristics
> > of the components that are being used.  So, when
> he
> > calls out that a certain trace (signal) runs to
> > "C15", I need to know that the fact that he has
> > *simply* said "C15" implies that C15 is an NPO
> > device.  OTOH, had C15 been polarized, I would
> have
> > expected him to say "the high side of C15", etc.
> >
> > > In that case, you could argue the same thing
> about
> > > any language:
> >
> > Sure, but I'm assuming USASCII as the character
> set
> > and western european "languages"
> >
> 
> So assume you substitute each APL char, with one
> unused ASCII char.
> You are going to end up with punctuation...  more
> than tweny-six.

It's not punctuation, per se, that is the problem.
It is punctuation that is *silent*.

E.g., "cow + bird" is fine... but "cow; bird" is
problematic as it isn;t natural to pronounce the
semicolon.  And, things like "++", "->", "<-", etc.
get even more cumbersome.
 
> > Would you prefer I call them "graphemes"?  :>
> 
> > My point was, if you can overload the "+" operator
> > (addition, string concatenation, union of sets,
> etc.)
> > then it tends to appear more often in "programs".
> > Just like '=' appears so frequently in C programs
> > because it is part of so many "legal" operators
> > (=, ==, +=, >=, !=, >>=, etc.)  Likewise, parens
> > used in functions, array declarations,
> expressions,
> > etc. (in some languages).
> 
> Yeah... but that just speaks to the mean, not the
> count ... am I wrong?

Not sure I follow your comment...  :<
My goal is just to reduce silent/unspoken/unnecessary
aspects of the syntax.

E.g., in a different aspect, entirely... languages
in which case is significant in identifiers are a
problem because FOO and foo are not the same.
And, even someone aware of the significance of
case is encumbered discrimination FOO from foo from
Foo!

> > > I would also argue that if you are just looking
> at
> > > punctuation characters that will be present in
> any
> > > given code listing you will find that there is
> > > pretty much the same number in most languages.
> >
> > I think it depends on the capabilities of the
> language
> > (my original point).  E.g., things that aren't
> object
> > oriented have no punctuation associated with those
> > semantics.
> 
> Yeah, but if you use those semantics appropriately a
> program will
> actually end up having fewer lines than what you
> would otherwise have
> to do in a non-fluff language... otherwise why write
> anything but
> structured languages, or languages with hashes (or
> languages with more
> than one variable, etc.)...

But number of lines isn't the problem.  Conveying
the concept in an unambiguous way, is!  The more
nonintuitive your "pronunciation" of your code
snippet becomes, the more prone to error in
conveying that to someone.

E.g., when I was in school, "talking in graphs" was
a common way of expressing ideas quickly.  Much
easier to draw a model graph in the air than to
try to put all of the characteristics of that graph
into spoken word.  Less chance for misunderstanding.








 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com