[osflash] New Language RFC

[Cortlandt Winters]

'Sigh'. I'm not saying that the language be verbose.

Java is verbose, As2 is verbose. Natural language is not verbose. Cobol is
not a natural language.

"Go to the store. Get some healthy food. Come back home by 1:00 for Jim's
call. Waste some time on a stupid topic. Call Jim back if he doesn't call by
2:00." Write that up for me in any language you want that you think is more
terse and I'll sign up for it.

Natural language's only problem is that it can be ambiguous(not specific or
verbose enough). It's when programming languages make their syntax overly
specific in order to resolve the ambiguities that they become verbose.

Grammars are not verbose. Protocols are not verbose. Sets and logic are not
verbose and can be well described with natural language, expressions can be
verbose, but it's not a problem to allow them. There are whole terms like
"intersection" that mean something very usefull in a very terse way, and
which are seldom used in languages.

This is all silly and a mute point, but for what it's worth, I don't want to
use cobol any more than anybody else.

That one that Martin pointed out is interesting. I will read that paper
about it.

On 11/1/05, cornel <tcornel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> some/most people dislike cobol for its verbose syntax; an even
> verboser language would be a pain for me, but everybody is, of course,
> free to like/dislike whatever they wants.
> peace.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/attachments/20051101/fc2e9348/attachment.htm