Looking for ugly code comparisons WAS: Slashdotter looking forkids' programming language

[Bill Marriott]

Dave,

> [...] ugly code in  RunRev is far far uglier than in any other language 
> I've used for a  number of reasons.

Quite honestly, I'd like to see examples and specifics to support this 
claim. Indeed, if you think this is the case, try entering one of the "code 
obfuscation" challenges. It's quite rare I get a block of Rev code that I 
cannot understand with a little bit of study. The same cannot be said for 
other languages. At worst there might be a "PageMaker" effect. For those of 
you around at the dawn of desktop publishing, the availability of this 
software (and LaserWriters) to the masses led to a lot of poorly designed 
newsletters. But just as with PageMaker, Revolution enables mortal beings to 
accomplish things they could not consider doing previously. The particular 
expression may be inelegant, but if it works, it works.

> It's seem like clutching at straws and verging on being deceitful to  make 
> RunRev look good by showing how bad other languages can be,  while at the 
> same time keeping quiet about how ugly RunRev code can be!

Them's is strong words, fightin' words!

Look, someone can write a pretty awful novel in English. But you can at 
least read it, even with horrendous spelling and grammar errors, etc. You 
could be given a brilliant text written in Chinese, but if you don't know 
Chinese, it's a bit moot.

The readability of our language is its primary selling point, and not just 
something RunRev made up as a slogan over pints. It's why Revolution exists, 
the primary reason why we all use it. Not out of necessity, not because 
we're less intelligent, but because it's a joy to write and efficient to 
maintain. I'd venture many of us wouldn't be programmers today if it weren't 
for Rev.

While the majority of Slashdotters in that thread are debating the relative 
merits of one language over another, the elephant in the room is that they 
are ALL by comparison to Revolution, UNNATURAL. ONLY Revolution* comes close 
to using plain English to describe an algorithm. It might even be valid to 
say that because Revolution does not have built-in routines for some of the 
things other languages can do that you must add custom functions or work 
around those limitations in an inelegant way. But, you can STILL read and 
understand what that code does! Even Brian Yennie's fanciful example of 
"ugly" Rev code was merely complex (you might not off the top of your head 
predict the result), but each line was clear what it does.

I do not feel there is any reasonable debate that the average Revolution 
handler will be shorter, clearer, and easier to follow than the average 
routine in just about any other language. Revolution is the pinnacle of 
"self-documenting" code available today. If you want to show evidence that's 
not the case, I'm all ears.

At the end of the day I suppose it might come down to aesthetics, which is 
difficult to quantify in a way where we can say, "Yes, this is more ugly 
than that." But there are no straws to be clutched at here. Of all the 
criticisms that could be made of Revolution, inscrutable code is not one of 
them.

- Bill

* and HyperCard, SuperCard, and Director Lingo, all deprecated products 
(Director shifted to ECMAscript), and AppleScript (which as demonstrated 
elsewhere in the thread has evolved toward unreadability)