🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <78435-812136153@mindlink.bc.ca>, Jan_Walter@mindlink.bc.ca (Jan Walter) writes:
>
> I think the point is that a language does not have to be concise to be
> elegant - I would shy away from calling C concise. "Terse" is a better
> word, implying that poorly written C code is very difficult to decipher.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned 'Hamming distance' here.
One of the drawbacks to a 'terse' language is that a one-character
type is still likely to product a 'valid' program, one that will
compile. Whether it bombs sooner or later the depends on exactly
where the typo is. A more 'verbose' language will tend to be more
resistant to typos, as they will be more likely to fail compilation.
(so the mantra goes)

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)