May 2, 2012 at 11:09 am
Eric M Russell (5/2/2012)
Revenant (5/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/2/2012)
. . . So, I think the plus side of being able to let the machine do some of the grunt-work for us greatly outweighs the minus side; . . .Yeah, I have always wished for a programming language that would have only two statements: DO and UNDO. Compiler should figure out the rest from the context.
😀
Perl can do a lot with one command.
So could APL, but it was PITA to read.
May 2, 2012 at 11:56 am
Revenant (5/2/2012)
Eric M Russell (5/2/2012)
Revenant (5/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/2/2012)
. . . So, I think the plus side of being able to let the machine do some of the grunt-work for us greatly outweighs the minus side; . . .Yeah, I have always wished for a programming language that would have only two statements: DO and UNDO. Compiler should figure out the rest from the context.
😀
Perl can do a lot with one command.
So could APL, but it was PITA to read.
So could most Unix shell script languages, and they are a POP to read instead.
Just think of "rm -r *" as a nice single command.
Tom
May 2, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Revenant (5/2/2012)
Perl can do a lot with one command.
So could APL, but it was PITA to read.[/quote]
Arrgggghhhh, I think I disliked APL more than any other language. Neat idea, raised my blood pressure in college more than most coursework should.
Viewing 3 posts - 31 through 32 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply