From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-01-15T07:11:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Small Methods - a ramble

Hi --

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Tobias Reif wrote:

> David Alan Black wrote:
>
>
> > Clarity is such a vexed thing.  I believe people who say that they
> > find Perl code clear.  (I used to find it reasonably clear -- I'm a
> > little out of the loop right now :-) I also believe people who say
> > they find it opaque, and I believe those people when they say they
> > find code in some other language clear.  (Which is to say, if a
> > non-programmer said Perl was opaque, that wouldn't "count" in the same
> > way.)  Clarity is annoyingly relative; it seems that what you find
> > clear is what you've learned to find clear, and/or perhaps are
> > cognitively predisposed to find clear.
>
>
> exactly. That's why,
>
> If there's a Perl crack, a Ruby wizard, and a programming newbie, then
> I'd value the newbies judgement about the clarity of each language the
> highest.

OK, but how far would you take that?  Someone who knew no computer
languages?  A four-year-old child who liked the look of one more than
another?

Also, if clarity is relative (to each person's perception), then the
whole idea of someone rendering a judgement about clarity -- that is,
a judgement that should mean anything to other people -- loses its
meaning.  Well, in reality there are circumstances where it might mean
something, such as when someone whose perception of clarity you trust
suggests to you that such-and-such a language has a clear syntax.  But
in principle, the newbie's judgement reflects the newbie's experience.
The newbie can't tell or convince someone who thinks Perl is opaque
that it isn't.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav