🚀 go-pugleaf

> Rojer, maybe you're used to it, but to my eye that ALP code is
> actually harder to read than well-written normal ASM.
>
> /Leonard

Well, in many respects it's a different language -- just one that has a
lot of similarity to assembler.  No one expects to understand C or PL/I
programs without having studied the language at all.  Some people like
ALP, some don't -- just like anything else.  I found the examples with
the structure macros difficult to follow, but I'm sure it would be much
easier if I were used to them.

I've been writing 360/370 assembler code since 1965 and found it
awkward for writing and maintaining large systems, with the flow of
control being a big part (but not all) of the problem.  Apparently
others agree or there wouldn't be so many control structure macro
packages around.  By the way, ALP is based on a package called AL
originially developed at the Mitre Corporation.  We took it and greatly
enhanced it (500 lines of PL/I became over 3000).  If I were picking a
language to write a large system in today, I might well choose C, in
spite of the things I don't care for about it.  C was not available in
1973, when ALP was done.

Roger