Re: RPN maps to basic mathematic expressions nicely

cr88192 wrote:

> "Marcel Hendrix" <mhx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:21891138123560@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>"cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes Re: RPN maps to basic mathematic 
>>expressions nicely
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>so, IMO:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>more traditional syntaxes (C or Pascal like), are a lot better for
human
>>>editing, primarily because they offer abstraction, use visual 
>>>associativity
>>>(rather than structural associativity).
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>I will assert that a more C or Pascal style syntax allows greater
>>>readability.
>>
>>You mean, like the attached?
>>
>>-marcel
>>
> 
> 
> <snip, big ugly example>
> 
> 
> I meant, in general, not that one go and find some ugly monstrosity in
an 
> attempt to prove a point (absent citing any comprable example, say, in 
> forth).
> 
> so, here is the challenge:
> find some forth/postscript/... programs that can perform the same task,
and 
> demonstrates comprable or greater readability, with well-written code in

> both languages.
> 
> monstrosity code in either language is a moot point, as I am not trying
to 
> claim that it is not possible to write ugly code here, only that, in 
> general, the structure of C like languages allows a decent level of 
> readability (I will assert likely better, in the average case, than 
> similarly complex RPN-styled code).
> 
> 
> additionally, I will discount trivially simple examples (such as 'hello 
> world', which do tend to come out longer and uglier in many C-like 
> languages).
> [snip]

Suggest you look at Leo Brodie's "wa****ng machine" example. Can't 
remember if it was in _Starting Forth_ or _Thinking Forth_ . He created 
it to show some basic points of Forth style/grammar/syntax/"whatever. 
*BUT* it would take trivial *AND _VERY_ READABLE* mods to create a 
complete process control app. Can't see that readability being done in C 
(or any C like language ;)