Re: Open Source Quality

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 20:33:52 CDT

On May 10, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote:

> APL, also.

I would argue that our criteria are not strong enough
if we claim that APL is an adequate language for this

APL turns out to be a spectacularly useful language for
"throw away programming", where, once written, programs
are used once and discarded.

APL programs are notoriously hard to follow by those
who didn't write them, or by those who did, but more than
an hour ago.

There may be disciplined programming models for APL, but
like disciplined programming models for other languages,
experienced programmers tend to bend the model, until
only the original author can understand the code.

In sum, I believe we should not encourage the use of
any language where valid programs strongly resemble
line noise or compressed files viewed as text.

> Another issue is choosing a language that is simple enough so
> that the implementation can be verified. FORTH is the leader by
> this measure, though of course it fails on bounds checking and
> garbage collection.

Perhaps, but again, FORTH programs have a habit of looking
like line noise.
                                Doug Jones
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:32 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT