Language for the ages

[Chuck Guzis]

On 10/14/2005 at 8:34 PM steve wrote:

>Well I referring to PDL and its siblings, a structured
>form of English that explicited (without the syntax
>quirks of specific computer languages), it doesn't
>explain why something is being done, like comments do,
>its just a duplicate of the code written in english

I dunno, Steve--it sounds as if it's subject to the same quirks as
idiot-written comments.

I start grinding my teeth when I read stuff like this:

	PSHR	R2			;  Push R2 onto the stack
	MVII		10,R1			;  Move 10 to R1
	CLRR	R2			;  Clear R2
OK1	JSR		R5,FOOP		;  Call FOOP
	DECR	R1			;  Decrement R1
	BNZE	OK1			;  Branch to OK1 if not zero

A comment on every line that describes exactly what's happening without any
sort "big picture".  Absolutely meaningless.

Give me a "Dutch Uncle" commentary any day that explains in general terms
what we're trying to do and how we're doing it.   ...and then keep it
current with revisions (hear that, Microsoft?).

I suppose one could code the problem in machine code, then furnish a
pseudocode description of the machine architecture, too--and never explain
in general terms what the heck is going on.

Cheers,
Chuck





	



>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/pseudocode.html
>
>in this case the "compiler" is a english speaking
>human, a good bet they will exist for a long time
>
>
>
>	
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
>http://mail.yahoo.com