From: "Steve Andrew"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6P1M9.67823$hK4.email@example.com> <4A3M9.75796$Db4.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:09:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:09:33 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:
> As a long time machine code and assembly programmer from way
> back, Basic was truly simple when it appeared. But C also caught my
> attention quickly and has remained my favorite language ever since.
> I have to say that all the C mutations are not so good, such as C#
> and probably C Hyper or some other things we have yet to imagine-
> function overloading and the like really seems more of a handicap in
> many circumstances, leaving the new guy staring at what you have
> written and wondering how it works at all. It should have stayed
> simple, in my opinion. Turbo C was truly a great language and I
> enjoyed it from one end to the other. But when inheritance, virtual
> operators, etc. showed their faces, the language lost its innate
> simplicity and legibility. I do write in C++ but I stick mostly with
> the older, well known Turbo C style programming. Well, this is
> more of a ramble, but the fact is, any language can be legible and
> understandable if it is written properly. Sure, you can write in an
> obscure fashion too, and many programmers seem to delete in creating
> crunched, obtuse, "snazzy" routines that nobody but a computer
> scientist could ever unravel. This is not the point of making
> programs. C actually gains great clarity from the ability to write
> functions, not the opposite. Anyone can understand what "print" does
> in Basic, but only a handful really know what happens in the mix.
> The same stands for any function in C, if it is named and laid out
> properly. My point is that any decent programmer worth what you pay
> him will create legible, well documented programs. If they can't
> stick to some sort of standards, they are not worth the time. You
> will just be setting yourself up for a disaster.
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
I agree 100% Chip. Some C programmers seem to delight in writing obtuse and
impenetrable code. Sure, you can write something really fancy in one line of
code. I've always found it better to expand the same code into 2-3 lines (or
more) for the sake of readability, particularly if the code is going to have
to be maintained by somebody else in the future. Most of the time, the
expanded code compiles to around the same code length as the single line in
any case. Of course, this applies to whatever language you use, it's not the
language you use, as much as what you do with it that counts.