>
>
> The ergonomics and aesthetics of the command line are not always reflected
> in programming languages, because the environments are not the same.
> Commands needed to be typed on a teletype console in the middle of the
> night to fix problems. Programs could be developed at leisure, with
> fancy non-paper-spewing terminals, and with editors that would let you
> move the cursor back to previous lines at will to make corrections before
> finally submitting the program for compilation.
>
Yes, but with 300 bits terminal you probably want to type "execv" instead
of "CreateProcess"
(the latter is roughly equivalent of "fork+exec" from the Windows API)
For some reason "old" languages like "C" do not use long names and "modern"
languages like C# and Java do.
Compare "time()" with "System.currentTimeMillis()" :)
> As such, the greater concerns with a programming language are making it
> easy to express your algorithm, and easy to understand existing code.
>
I agree. This is why functional-like syntax-sugar becomes more and more
popular:
In "Kotlin" you can write ``someArray.sortedArray().joinToString(",")`` and
it will take lots of lines to rewrite it in imperative style.
> Conciseness gives a much smaller benefit, and is not prized nearly as
> highly, except among bored kids.
>
I believe this is because we now have smart IDEs with code completion (even
for "vim" we have "ectags"!).
But 45 years ago conciseness was much more important.
In one of the Apple frameworks they have a class called
"INGetAvailableRestaurantReservationBookingDefaultsIntentResponse"
Imagine someone typing it manually on a slow connection and 80x25 screen.
