From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   bill   wrote:   
   >On 12/1/2025 4:23 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <10gk6e6$1bcst$3@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Simon Clubley   wrote:   
   >>>> Now this is opinion, and really a poor argument.  While I detest the   
   verbosity   
   >>>> in most things, that is my choice, not the problem you claim.   
   >>>   
   >>> Back on topic, COBOL is very verbose, but I also hate way too concise   
   >>> languages where the language designers don't even allow words like   
   >>> "function" to be spelt out in full. You read code many more times than   
   >>> you write it and having cryptic syntax makes that a lot harder to achieve.   
   >>   
   >> Excessive verbosity can be a hindrance to readability, but   
   >> finding a balance with concision is more art that science.  I   
   >> don't feel the need to spell out "function" when there's an   
   >> acceptable abbreviation that means the same thing ("fn"/"fun"/   
   >> etc).  That said, a lot of early Unix code that omitted vowels   
   >> for brevity was utterly abstruse.   
   >>   
   >>> Something like Ada was designed for readability, and I wish all other   
   >>> languages followed that example.   
   >>   
   >> Unfortunately, what's considered "readable" is both subjective   
   >> and depends on the audience.  Personally, I don't find Ada more   
   >> readable because they it forces me to write `function` instead   
   >> of `fn` or `procedure` instead of `proc`.  If anything, I find   
   >> the split between two types of subprograms less readadable, no   
   >> matter how it's presented syntacticaly.  Similarly, I don't find   
   >> the use of `begin` and `end` keywords more readable than `{` and   
   >> `}`, or similar lexical glyphs.  I understand that others feel   
   >> differently.   
   >>   
   >> If anything, I find it less readable since it is less visually   
   >> distinct (perhaps, if I my eyesight was even worse than it   
   >> already is, I would feel differently).   
   >>   
   >>> Just waiting for the moment when a newcomer designs a new language which   
   >>> has syntax resembling TECO... :-)   
   >>   
   >> Or APL.   
   >   
   >Nothing wrong with APL, if the task is within the languages domain.   
      
   Kinda ruining the joke, but....   
      
   The language itself is ok.  For that matter, as a language TECO   
   is ok.  It's the syntactic and lexical structure of both that   
   are an issue.  Re: APL, what does the little wheel thing do   
   again?   
      
   >But then, I am one of the last advocates for domain specific rather   
   >than generic languages.   
      
   I don't think that's true.  DSLs are more popular than ever.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)