🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Hollebeek <tim@franck> wrote:
>Felix Sebastian Gallo (fsg@news.eden.com) wrote:
>: I know it's not in the spirit of Usenet, but instead of seeing every
>: last advocate of every last language post their own particular
>: example of how to count readably, might we agree that each of our
>: favorite languages has its own space of clear superiority and its
>: own weaknesses?
>
>One can go too far and be 'politically correct', as some have in this
>thread, and assert that 'all languages are equally readable' or some
>other such nonsense.  The truth is that some are more readable than
>others; personally I liked seeing the Sather example, as it was particularly
>elegant.  We may not all _agree_ as to which languages are more readable,
>but that doesn't make them all equally readable.

Sadly, you miss the point.  It's not in the spirit of political
correctness or linguistic revisionism that I and others wince at
the tendentious posting of every single language's implementation
of fibonacci or counting from 1 to 10.

Rather, it's our pained assessment that tiny, useless code fragments
geared towards highlighting the good features of each language are
not only valueless, but actively so.  They further the notion that
it's all about how readable code is to rank novices, or it's all
about how few characters it takes to implement bubble sort, or
it's all about how clever the parser is.  In fact, language choice
is about all of those things and several million more (many of
which are _objectively_ far more important).  It's really about
suitability to job.

For you, your job may require Sather or Lisp or C++ or even Java.
For me, my job definitely requires Perl and little but.  Let's
not preach to the damned or the converted, it's of absolutely no
utility.

Felix