Anonymous user
User talk:Dkf: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 50:
::: Terseness has nothing to do with readability or understandability. Chinese ideograms provide one symbol for each complete word in the language, much like J or APL. Chinese text is extremely "terse" when compared to English, but I'm sure if you told a native Chinese that their language is harder to understand than English because it is too terse, they would disagree.
::: Readability/understandability of any text is simply a function of familiarity, not terseness. The reason that many common programming languages are "readable" to many programmers, is because one language will often use constructs that are similar to other languages,
::: A similar argument can be made for comments. If the reader is very familiar with a specific programming language, well-written code in that language will self-describe its' processes to that reader. Of course, code can be written to disguise its function, and poorly-written code can still be difficult to read. Comments are still useful for readers who are not proficient with a specific language, but who must maintain that unfamiliar code. -- [[User:Teledon|Teledon]] 1:46 1 September 2009
| |||