Re: What the compiler does, or not?

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe Pluta wrote:
> ...
> We can't use MOVE in free form, which is telling us when and where we can
> use it.  Either free-form is a new language, in which case you've removed
> the MOVE instruction, or it isn't, in which case you've made RPG modal and
> required us to switch modes during programming to use the MOVE instruction.
> Either one is you forcing your idea of proper programming on thousands of
> RPG programmers.  IMO you should make sure those opcodes work everywhere and
> let us write the code that end users need, without having to worry about
> what you think is correct.
>
> You are the lexicographer, we are the authors.

From Webster's Dictionary:

"lexicographer n. one who compiles a dictionary"

As I said, I am not a lexicographer.

Joe, that little diversion delved into the absurdities of human 
language, English spelling in particular. I think it should be 
fairly obvious to most that human language is intrinsically 
different from programming languages.

If you want to nit-pick, call me a "programming language designer".

Sure, perhaps we are forcing some notion of "proper programming on 
thousands of RPG programmers". But so what? As pointed out earlier, 
programming languages are not the same as human languages. No one 
can (or should) impose "proper" usage of any human language. But 
still, people can and do communicate with each other, even when it's 
through a language that neither speaker is totally fluent in. In 
contrast, clarity and precision are absolutely necessary in the 
realm of computer programming. The main point of free-form calcs is 
to improve the clarity of your programming.

BTW, if you want to use a programming language designed by a 
linguist, you should learn Perl. Although powerful and popular, my 
favorite adjective for Perl is "gawd-awful".

Cheers! Hans