Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?

Joe Bowbeer wrote:
> Backing up a bit, to this question:
> > So would you rather see the typical Pascal if-then-else statement or "fun1
> > fun2 arg if-else" ?

> Even when faced with reasoned arguments about the simplicity and utility of
> the post-fix syntax on the right, almost everyone (outside of this list)
> would rather see Pascal.  For many people, in fact, the syntax on the right
> is a non-starter.

As much as I'd argue with you (and everyone on this list knows I would),
there are also reasons why you and all those people are _right_. The
completely postfix form of 'if' necessarily leaves the reader wondering
what the purpose of the quotation is; the answer doesn't come until they
see the 'if' -- and if the programmer's being clever, it's possible that
they might have to trace back through some dataflow instructions to see
which quotation got passed to 'if'.

Forth's or 5th's second level constructs are actually easier to read,
even though they're not as concatenatively clean.

> As Lojban reminds us, reasoned arguments do little to change people's
> preferences.  As the old saying goes: in matters of taste, there's no
> argument.

Not so much. There are a LOT of people totally convinced by Lojban at
one time or another. My point was that in spite of being convinced, they
still couldn't learn Lojban up to the point of fluency.

To design a truly natural language, you have to start with a /complex/
grammar.

> However, if you change the conditions, by saying, for example, that this
> language is to be used for on-device programming of an iPhone, where the
> screen is small and typing is relatively awkward, then you might get a
> different answer.  (How many remember programming those old HP calculators?)

The language was called 'RPN'. Good times. IIRC, their 'if' construct
wasn't RPN :-).

> By the way, I think my analogies with natural language are flawed.
> Shorthand is too harsh, I think, and Textese (SMS chatspeak) is not harsh
> enough.

Analogies are never perfect :-).

But shorthand and court-reporter typing are both superficial
optimizations, not a profoundly different type of language.

> Joe

-Wm