Re: Syntax and redundancy

[Boyko Bantchev <boykobb@...>]

On 8/30/05, Rici Lake <lua@ricilake.net> wrote:
> The "conciseness" of C is mostly illusory. :)

-- I do not know about that, and the examples considered,
   or any arguments based on them, cannot change this.
-- I do not argue about that (I mentioned the use of macro
   just as an illustration that there are different possibilities
   in case a short expression is sought.  And for the sake
   of playing.)
-- I do not think of which one -- Lua or C -- is more concise.
   To me, this has no sense because I tend to use them for
   different purposes.

The particular example with a `for' loop is, in fact,
particularly inappropriate for comparing Lua and C,
because the `for' in C and the `for' in Lua are very
different beasts.

More generally, the issue of concision is:
-- hard to measure on a couple of isolated examples:
   larger (con)texts are required;
-- of no use to measure alone, with no account for how it
   interacts with other factors;
-- of many levels and aspects;
-- manifesting itself differently in different kinds of programs;
-- not always important.

And why on Earth should we oppose one language to another?
This seems to me as absurd as asking ``Which is better,
English or Portuguese?'' (to name but two).
In the world of programming, bad languages are simply avoided,
if possible.  The rest are used, and hopefully improve.