home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sable.ox.ac.uk!shug0046
- From: shug0046@sable.ox.ac.uk (Karl Wilkinson)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java
- Subject: Re: Relative Speed of Perl vs. Tcl vs. C [indentation]
- Followup-To: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java
- Date: 18 Feb 1996 19:53:18 GMT
- Organization: Oxford University, England
- Message-ID: <4g803e$7k5@news.ox.ac.uk>
- References: <4g0bd6INNn9j@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <4g1h0a$l72@orac.mon.rnb.com> <MARKT.96Feb16162033@atlas.harlqn.co.uk> <4g5agi$30g@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sable.ox.ac.uk
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- : Mark Tillotson <markt@harlqn.co.uk> wrote:
- : >No no no no no. The reasons why this is a fundamentally flawed idea
- : >are endless: linewrap, tabs, painful to automatically generate code,
- : >virtually impossible to stream-edit code, proportional fonts,
- : >breakable v. non-breakable spaces of differing widths, difficulty of
- : >cut-and-paste, impossible to use yacc-style tools, difficult to read
- : >out over the phone, hard to internationalize, sensitive to identity of
- : >newline character, macros, statements inside expressions, ...
-
- Should languages really be based on such issues? Your complaints
- certainly apply even more strongly to any form of visual programming, but
- the potential benefits of visual techniques are overpowering (even if
- only in some problem domains). We can't forever restrict our choice of
- languages to those that are easily manipulated with legacy stream based
- tools.
-
- Karl Wilkinson.
-
-