Re: Code Comprehension

Logan Shaw wrote:

As a practical matter, if you are going to come up with an idealized
set of semantics, it helps to know the real semantics very thoroughly.
And that could be a worthwhile endeavor. However, it would not be a
worthwhile endeavor to attempt to produce an improved set of semantics
without a sufficient understanding to do it correctly.

It is true that there can be idioms which lend
themselve to misinterpretation, but they tend to be rare -- idioms
become idioms because (considered as memes) they are sucessful.

That's true. And now you mention it, I think that some of my suspicion
of the "baby-talk"[*] approach to using non-baby-talk languages comes
for rather a lot of experience with people who use it /because/ they
don't understand the real language. I'm not suggesting Pascal falls
into that category, but too many programmers (IMO) do.

([*] I realise the term "baby-talk" is prejudging the issue -- and in
spades ;-) -- but I can't think of a short, clear, neutral, phrase to
replace it with.)


Often, but it's not always the case that a successful meme or idiom
is a helpful one, so that has to be taken into account.

Sure, I even tried to say -- or hint -- as much myself.

-- chris
.