Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.etla.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: The magical number seven (was: Tiny regular expressions code) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:36:24 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <543bfa10$0$2928$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <6a35de1e-64e4-426c-b9d9-e3c70ab2eeee@googlegroups.com> <544139de$0$2964$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <54414f47$0$2922$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <2014Oct18.174324@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Oct20.111046@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <54452979$0$2923$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:34038 On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:28:00 -0400, Hans Bezemer wrote: > But my two cents to the discussion, I don't think that ANY programming > paradigm is able to enforce "writing good code". People are able to master the ability to solve complicated math and physic problems. Are you saying people are unable to represent the solution process for solving such problems as a verifiably correct programming paradigm? > - I think that forcing Python users to indent properly may have given > more rise to hard to trace bugs than anything else; I know very little about Python. So, I can accept that as true, for now. Contrarily, I understand that indenting in languages, like C, which don't require it improves readability immensely. From my experience in other languages, I believe improved readability reduces certain coding errors. > - Some loop constructs are better handled by GOTO than forcing people > into structured programming; I've used structured programming since I first learned how to program a little over three decades ago. GOTO is completely unecessary. So, under what circumstances do you believe your claim to be true? > - And the best of all, OO has given rise to "lasagna code" instead of > getting in the land of reliable code I agree. > (with other claims of OO broken down by reality as well); Interesting. > - And what Java is concerned, well, we all know too well what's wrong > with Java, don't we. Other than Java not having pointers, I don't know what you're talking about. Of course, I'm familiar with C but not Java. Could you explain? Rod Pemberton