English-like nature of Transcript ?

[Rob Cozens]

Richmond,

>2. Some people prefer to code in a more "programming-code"
>sort of syntax (maybe those coming from elsewhere),

There are historical and practical reasons for this:

History: In the early days of computing, space was at a premium both 
inside & outside the computer.  RAM & disk storage were limited in 
capacity (I supported 10 terminals on a DG Eclipse C330 with 256 K -- 
ie: 1/4 of 1 MB -- RAM and 190 MB of disk storage in the mid 70s) and 
very expensive.  Also, program logic on many computers at the time 
was maintained on punched cards, limiting each line of code to 80 
characters.  In addition, many early compilers limited variable names 
to <10 characters.  So early coders kept variable names short and 
most compiler syntax was "succinct", to say the least.

Perhaps for the practical reason below, many programmers continue to 
value brevity when space, cost, and compiler limitations are no 
longer an issue.

Practicality:  Humans in general tend to strive for "efficiency", 
and, faced with deadlines to produce working software, many 
programmers prefer to name (& reference many times throughout the 
source code) variables "x" and "y" rather than repeatedly type 
descriptive variable names like "workingTotal" or "customerName". The 
presumption is short variable names and cryptic syntax lead to more 
efficient programming and shorter development cycles.

 From the perspective of my 30 years of programming, that presumption 
is dead wrong.

Because "efficiency" of producing original source code leads to gross 
ineffiency during debugging and subsequently as modifications are 
made over the life of the software.  IMFO, cryptic names and cryptic 
syntax save one little during initial coding and cost _lots_ over the 
rest of the life of a project.

Rob Cozens CCW
Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
  Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

  from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)