Invisible wrote:
> "The troff(1) typesetting formatter was, as we noted in Chapter 2, 
> Unix's original killer application."
> 
> Oh really? 

Yes. troff is what runs when you say "man bash" for example.

> And to think most people consider syntactic sugar to be a /good/ thing...

It depends if it's useful or not. Some people put in syntax sugar just to 
make their language look like someone else's.

> "Stack-based languages are famous for supporting extremely tight, 
> economical coding and infamous for being difficult to read. PostScript 
> shares both traits."
> 
> Really? The design of PostScript looks fairly UNeconomical to me. 

No, the *program* is economical. Recognise that FORTH (for example) fits an 
entire operating system, compiler, runtime, with disk drivers and 
everything, into about 4K.  It's often used to program boot roms, embedded 
stuff like televisions, etc.   Postscript is very economical in terms of 
writing code to display stuff on paper.  They're not talking about the 
interpreter. They're talking about the code you write using the interpreter.

> "Syntactically JavaScript resembles Java with some influence from Perl, 
> and features Perl-like regular expressions."
> 
> Since when does JS have regular expressions?

Since when does javascript resemble Java at all? Or, for that matter, have 
any influence from Perl?


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message