counter++ versus "add 1 to counter"

[Mark Wieder]

A.C.T.-

Sunday, March 21, 2004, 10:34:13 AM, you wrote:

ACT> absolutely. It is just what I tried to explain: A programming language
ACT> IS NOT a human language, but Transcript is "somewhat English", more than

Exactly.

ACT> dialect makes things easy. Coming from a different development
ACT> environment makes things more complicated than necessary.
ACT> I explained my background as having "coded" in Machine Language (hex
ACT> codes only). That wasn't English - at all. It was more like "Latin"

Nitpicking note - hex codes aren't machine language either. All the
CPU understands is ones and zeros. Hex codes are just another way of
making the CPU's language more human-readable. Working your way up,
assembly language and higher-level languages such as C and Transcript
were designed to insulate the programmer from having to deal with the
drudgery of the low-level coding and thus increase programmer
productivity by allowing the coder to concentrate on the program
itself rather than on the infrastructure. IMO this is a Good Thing.

ACT> explaining TO A HUMAN BEING what I intend to do. That goal is to make
ACT> the computer do what I want it to.

<g> If you ever figure that one out, be sure to let us know. Somehow
computers always do what I tell them to do instead. </g>

ACT> Any influence that makes the interaction between the developer (and his
ACT> staff) and the machine unprecise has to be avoided. Introducing "human
ACT> interactive components" like "sentence structures" are distractions,
ACT> they don't enforce the goal that is to be reached. They _do_ have their

<g> Careful - you're starting to make an argument for postfix
notation here. </g>

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 mwieder at ahsoftware.net