L-one-two-three (L1:..L2:..L3:) considered harmful

It is said by non-APL-programmers that APL code is hard to read and that it is unstructured. Here we argue that APL-programmers may refute this assertion by pointing out some misunderstandings, but admittedly a final analysis will show a deeper truth in these criticisms. We will show that APL gives...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: van Batenburg, F. H. D.
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
General and reference > Document types > Computing standards, RFCs and guidelines
Software and its engineering > Software notations and tools
Software and its engineering > Software notations and tools > General programming languages > Language types
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:It is said by non-APL-programmers that APL code is hard to read and that it is unstructured. Here we argue that APL-programmers may refute this assertion by pointing out some misunderstandings, but admittedly a final analysis will show a deeper truth in these criticisms. We will show that APL gives ample opportunity for unstructured code. Two proposals are presented to address this problem.The first rejects the developed convention for labelling and suggests the adoption of a proper style of programming enforced by a new standard of labelling. This standard will abolish unstructured code. Both negative and positive aspects of this proposal are discussed.The second proposal revives an old idea of introducing one single proper control structure into the language. This would make the current jump (→) superfluous and enforce structured code.
ISSN:0163-6006
DOI:10.1145/114054.114092