Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2007, 19:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <85bqbutszs.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
- In-Reply-To
- <46F55E03.2040404@krose.org>
Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Miles Bader wrote: >> Of course, some of the most horrid unreadable source code I've ever seen >> is in one of git's competitors -- written in python.... > > Indeed. :-) > > At the office, people constantly badmouth Perl, which has some > admittedly evil syntax (especially around exception handling).
Since Perl has agglomerated pretty much _every_ syntax, it is not surprising that evil syntax is included.
> C++ is in the same category as Perl IMO: too easy to produce > unreadable code.
Not quite. Perl gives you a hundred illegible ways to _say_ the same thing, C++ gives you a hundred illegible ways to _achieve_ the same thing, but using different means.
> I like Ruby, except for the performance problems. Once they have > those worked out, Ruby will be "Perl done right." ;-)
Ruby again is in the "throw every syntactical idiom I can think of together" ballpark. I find that a design mistake in Perl, a design mistake in Ruby, and even in C++ (Ada syntax for templates was just stupid, but at least there is no alternative syntax for it).
That's one of the things I like about Lua: its syntax fits on one page in the reference manual. And the reference manual has a paper size of about A5. While the syntax for Lisp would probably fit in the margin, it does so at a cost in legibility.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum