Paul said: > Sure, I'd agree with that one. But then if you take, say, C and > Python... even if people don't know the language as such, anyone > reading a Python program stands a very good chance of understanding > what the code is doing.
I think the primary determinant of code readability isn't the language but the choice of variable and function names. I think that with a wise choice almost any language can be used to write code that is easy to understand, whereas choosing nonsense names for functions (as, for example, the NAG library does) or variables (as vast quantities of code littered with variables called "tmp" or "tmp2" or "i" or whatever seems to do) makes code in any language obscure. Furthermore, I think that the primary purpose of code isn't to communicate ideas from person to machine but from person to person - most of the serious effort that goes into code is the correction of defects during debugging or updating of code during maintenance, and this is much easier when the purposes behind the code are obvious. Most of this work will be done by people other than the original programmer too, so clarity is especially important. (There are, unfortunately, microeconomic benefits for programmers who are the only people able to understand their code...) Rich GCU Code Complete _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
