🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) says:
[...stuff...]
>>In article <1992Aug18.065110.20337@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>> One can argue that this freedom of decision is actually undesirable,
>>> that a language which eliminates irrelevant decisions is better.
>
>>Certainly. That's the whole point of higher level languages after all.
>
>Too general.  [This sentence no verb.]  One can distinguish between
>forcing a choice between essentially equivalent alternatives and the
>eliminating the alternatives altogether. 

Let's have some more choices than just 2.
"Anybody who says there are two sides to any question
suffers from a lack of imagination." -- ?

>                                          Let me give some examples.
>
>Consider the language FL (short for fascist layout). 
[...]

OK, I believe most people would agree that choices in program layout are
just fluff, unimportant (in languages that don't care).

[...]
>Now consider the language FVN (short for fascist variable names).
[...]

STOP RIGHT THERE.  I, for one, will not agree that choice of variable
names is not important.  Of course, the compiler doesn't care, about
names or layout, that's why obfuscating programs work.
But variable names are _very_ important to humans who must read
programs.



You can have all kinds of constraints on what a compiler will/won't
accept, or relax them all you want.  From a programmer's point of
view, the most important audience for a program is a programmer.
We don't care how hard it is for the compiler to handle it, we
would like to make it easy to understand a program that we have to
look at.

--
Leslie J. Somos    ah739@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu