From: chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@...>
Date: 2006-04-06T06:36:14+09:00
Subject: Re: The World's Most Maintainable Programming Language

I haven't read the article yet, but there is lots to say in favour of
natural-language looking code, especially when you are trying to model
a domain that doesn't have a strong formalism of its own (maths is a
good formalism for physics or financial problems, but not for many
other domains).

Ambiguities can often be solved by interacting with the code and the
interpreter.

Don't dismiss the issue off-hand like this, there are some really
interesting developments in this area.

Of course I haven't read the article yet and I might just agree with
you when I read it :-)

--
Chiaroscuro
---
Liquid Development: http://liquiddevelopment.blogspot.com/

On 4/5/06, Damphyr <damphyr@freemail.gr> wrote:
> Bil Kleb wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/03/the_worlds_most_maintainable_p.html
> >
> >
> > He's got Ruby's naming a bit backwards?
> Not the only thing he got backwards. Did anyone read the part about
> Learnability? Eliminating mathematical symbols?
> Making programming languages like natural languages?
> And in the second part talking about consistency?
> Has this guy ever taken a natural language processing course?
> Or even talked to a linguist about the ambiguities of natural language?
> Good thing it was written on April 1st or I would have been really upset
> :).
> Boy, that is a lot of typing for an April fool's joke.
> V.-
>
> --
> http://www.braveworld.net/riva
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> http://www.freemail.gr - ������ �������� ������������ ������������.
> http://www.freemail.gr - free email service for the Greek-speaking.
>
>