@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ The rc (control) file syntax includes optional `noise' keywords that are entirel
...
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ The rc (control) file syntax includes optional `noise' keywords that are entirel
These started out as a late-night experiment when I noticed how much the rc file declarations were beginning to resemble an imperative minilanguage. (This is also why I changed the original popclient ``server'' keyword to ``poll'').
These started out as a late-night experiment when I noticed how much the rc file declarations were beginning to resemble an imperative minilanguage. (This is also why I changed the original popclient ``server'' keyword to ``poll'').
명령형 소언어를 더 영어처럼 만들면 사용하기 쉬울 것으로 보였다. 지금은 내가 비록 Emacs 나 HTML, 그리고 많은 데이터베이스 엔진에서 볼 수 있듯이 설계를 할 때 ``언어처럼 만드는'' 파의 일원이긴 하지만 ``영어와 비슷한'' 구분을 가지는 것에 대해서는 그다지 달가와 하지 않는다.
명령형 소언어를 더 영어처럼 만들면 사용하기 쉬울 것으로 보였다. 지금은 내가 비록 Emacs 나 HTML, 그리고 많은 데이터베이스 엔진에서 볼 수 있듯이 설계를 할 때 ``언어처럼 만드는'' 파의 일원이긴 하지만 ``영어와 비슷한'' 구분을 가지는 것에 대해서는 그다지 달가와 하지 않는다.
(박주희)
It seemed to me that trying to make that imperative minilanguage more like English might make it easier to use. Now, although I'm a convinced partisan of the ``make it a language'' school of design as exemplified by Emacs and HTML and many database engines, I am not normally a big fan of ``English-like'' syntaxes.
It seemed to me that trying to make that imperative minilanguage more like English might make it easier to use. Now, although I'm a convinced partisan of the ``make it a language'' school of design as exemplified by Emacs and HTML and many database engines, I am not normally a big fan of ``English-like'' syntaxes.
Traditionally programmers have tended to favor control syntaxes that are very precise and compact and have no redundancy at all. This is a cultural legacy from when computing resources were expensive, so parsing stages had to be as cheap and simple as possible. English, with about 50% redundancy, looked like a very inappropriate model then.
Traditionally programmers have tended to favor control syntaxes that are very precise and compact and have no redundancy at all. This is a cultural legacy from when computing resources were expensive, so parsing stages had to be as cheap and simple as possible. English, with about 50% redundancy, looked like a very inappropriate model then.