3 ms·

It's amazing how readable the code in that book is compared to C++, Java or even Rust. Some non-idiomatic Python may come close in readability, but not in type

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• zozbot234 3y ago
  It's just a different style of syntax, preferring written-out keywords to symbols (including the use of BEGIN and END as opposed to symbolic delimiters) and also using uppercase keywords to avoid them clashing with program identifiers. It was motivated historically by the highly restricted character sets (sometimes not even including lowercase) featured on some early computers. This is why COBOL goes as far as letting you write, e.g. DIVIDE x INTO y GIVING z. Nonetheless it does tend to be a tiny bit more readable for novices, at least when dealing with shorter program snippets, of the sort that might be common in intro programming books. The story changes as programs get larger, where being able to skim more code at a glance means that terser syntax is favored. (Of course, this is only true up to a point; you can also have languages like Perl or APL, which are both terse and quite difficult to parse.)
• kristianp 3y ago
  > Decades on, Wirth and Mössenböck are still an inspiration against bloatware. I was working on an Android app today, it boggles the mind how complex and huge Android studio is. 100+ MB, just to download a particular version of gradle. And the number of menu options when you right-click on a selection of code, for example.