[net.lang] Language design

friesen@psivax.UUCP (07/18/86)

In article <8900038@uiucdcsb> render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>I could go on, but I am interested in other peoples opinions.  So, a few
>questions for open discussion:
>
>+ What factors should go into the design of a language's syntax?
>  Readability?  Parsability?  Theoretical aesthetics?

        Mainly readability and parsability. Aesthetics is a secondary
consideration.
>
>+ Should the syntax be as brief as possible (APL, FP), or is some verbosity
>  good (Pascal, Ada)?
>
        In between. It needs to be verbose enough to be readable, but
not so verbose that the language gets in the way of programming. This
is not just to make it easier to type, too many reserved keywords
causes problems in naming objects. I still remember the time I spent a
day or so trying to figure out why a program wouldn't compile, and I
discovered it was because I had a variable called 'enum'! APL is too
cryptic, Ada and Cobol are too verbose. A given statement type should
only require one or two keywords(except perhaps for BEGIN/END pairs).

>+ How much can be expected of the average programmer when learning and trying
>  to assimilate a new language for regular usage?  In other words, is it
>  reasonable to design a language which uses very unfamiliar constructs and
>  notation, and, if so, what should the guidelines be when deciding this?
>
        It depends on the targeted purpose for the language. If it is
intended for naive users it should be as familiar and regular as
possible. If it is for sophisticated users the syntax should cleanly
match the target problem structure. Thus the design of LISP is not
really that bad, the main problem being insufficient attention paid to
readability.

        Of course all of the above is why I program in 'C' and am
looking forward to getting my C++ compiler.
--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??