Dependence on Programming Experts

[Dan Shafer]

Troy.....

I don't think you're being fair. I completely disagreed with your *point*;
you turned that into a personal attack on me, suggesting that I have some
sort of weird idea of what a language should support that is somehow at odds
with "everyone" (else). You made a comment to Richmond in another instance
of this thread about forgetting "how this list is." It seems to me that at
least in this case,  you've contributed to that.

What I disagreed with was your contention that verbose = arcane. That's all.
I've even grudgingly agreed with your main thrust about an alternate syntax
as long as it doesn't interfere with existing verbosity, which I find more
readable.

And to your point about not all code being written for community review, I
don't disagree, but I would suggest that sometimes code that one writes in a
terse and (to me) arcane language becomes unreadable to its programmer some
time down the road. For example, to me, Perl code that is uncommented but
otherwise "well crafted" (as judged by a Perl pro) is write-only code. I can
pick up an xTalk script I wrote years ago and understand what's going on in
part because the verbosity of the language makes it to some extent (and
clearly not completely) self-documenting. The same is true of my true
favorite language, Smalltalk, which is *truly*  verbose.

Maybe it's just because I'm a writer first and a software developer second
that I prefer these verbose languages, Troy, but it's not because I think my
view ought to hold sway over "everyone." And I think the discussion here
ought to be sufficient to convince you that your view -- which you'd like to
prevail as well -- isn't accepted or agreed with by "everyone", either.

On 7/11/06, Troy Rollins <troy_lists at rpsystems.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:
>
> > Completely disagree.
>
> So... in other words, the language should suit specifically *you*
> rather than *everyone*.
>
> Director has 3 complete syntaxes. They are ALL in use. I've never
> heard of anyone being bothered by the existence of the two they don't
> use. It simply doesn't come up as an issue.
>
> How would x = 5 create problems for you if you could still PUT 5 into x?
>
> I personally find verbose arcane. Disagree all you like.
>
> > Verbose tends to be far more readable by more people
> > with less detailed knowledge of the language and system.
>
> So? Not all software is written to be handed around for community
> review. Some of it is just solitary programming and getting stuff
> done. We're not all writing eBooks about it.
>
> You may be surprised to hear, at least some of us use Revolution
> DESPITE of its language, not because of it. I'm sure that many
> experienced developers have abandoned it entirely due to the arcane-
> seeming syntax in contrast to virtually every other language out there.
>
> "Bah! We don't need 'em!"
>
> What exactly is the proven benefit of keeping verbose languages
> "verbosely pure" again?
>
> --
> Troy
> RPSystems, Ltd.
> http://www.rpsystems.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html