Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose it's very doable to have a FrenchPerl6 editor/parser/whatever
> that makes most of this transparent, but the thing I like the most about
> programming languages it that their are foreign languages.
Microsoft once made a huge experimen
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Heck, I'd even argue that "$a mat $b" works, too.
> What does "mat" do? It "mats". If "grep" is a word, "mat" can be a
> word. :-) Or "lik". Or "sma".
Or just z, as in "matchez" or a twisted "s"
$foo mat $bar
$foo mz $bar
$foo lik $bar
Smylers wrote:
> This is only objecting to having English operators as synonyms for
> symbolic ones. None of the above would apply if where English forms
> were used they were to be the _only_ forms, with no symbolic
> equivalents.
Yes, I think we're basically saying the same thing, but in differ
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:23:19PM -, Smylers wrote:
>
> > I believe that having English aliases would make matters worse.
>
> I agree, in general. I was planning on writing something about this.
> Now I don't have to :-)
Pleased to be of help!
> The only thing I wou
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:23:19PM -, Smylers wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> > Here's my own argument for using "like/unlike", and "none", and a
> > bunch of other english-sounding things we haven't even talked about
> > yet.
> >
> > ... I don't think we've put much of a dent in the "re
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Here's my own argument for using "like/unlike", and "none", and a
> bunch of other english-sounding things we haven't even talked about
> yet.
>
> ... I don't think we've put much of a dent in the "readability"
> complaints ... I think we need to care about these concerns
On 26 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
: > But our version of "understandable" still means a steep, steep learning
: > curve.
:
: It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
: curve has a 180 degree turn.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> It rather depends on how common the Superposition operators turn out
> to be doesn't it?
No. No, it doesn't.
--
heh, yeah, but Aretha could be reading out /etc/services and
kick just so much ass :)
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
>> But our version of "understandable" still means a steep, steep learning
>> curve.
>
> It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
>
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> So lets have _lots_ of operators, and _lots_ of two-to-four-letter
> barewords, so long as they each do something Big, or something
> Universal. And let's locale-ize them, so that non-english-speakers can
> use 'umu' to mean 'bool', etc. Hey, why the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> But our version of "understandable" still means a steep, steep learning
> curve.
It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
curve has a 180 degree turn.
Quick: what are the bitwise operators in Java,
x27; and similar, I would argue that
(1) things quite that bad will be reasonably sparse in real programs,
and (2) they comprise so much functionality in such a little package
that the overall "flow" of what's happening in an algorithm is much more
understandable. Hence we have al
12 matches
Mail list logo
