Code can, by itself, convey a meaning, which in times of object oriented
programming doesn't need to be functional but is descriptive. For example,
if you program a game a couple of lines like:
<code>
Player antagonist;
Player protagonist;
protagonist.Name("Chuck the Sherriff");
antagonist.Name("Eddie Rodriguez");
protagonist.meets(antagonist);
antagonist.readyWeapon("colt");
protagonist.duckCover("wall");
antagonist.shoot(protagonist);
if (antagonist.hitsTarget(protagonist)) {
protagonist.takeDamage(antagonist.Shot());
} else {
protagonist.readyWeapon("shotgun");
}
</code>
Would not be uncommen and even be quite possible. It is even understandable
by non-programmers.
Now lets have a look at this:
And finally Chuck the Sherriff met his nemesis, Eddie Rodriguez. With
an arrogant smirk however, Eddie draws his Colt and aims at Chuck.
Chuck recognized this at once, and jumped straight behind a wall.
The shot echoed through the emtpy streets. Then there was silence?
Has chuck been hit? Was he laying injured behind the wall where he
ducked for cover? No! With his shotgun in his hand, he jumped back up
and now threatened Eddie.
I admit I'm not much of a writer but you should
get the point. Quite similar isn't it?
One could argue now: this code is constructed! But normally code has not
such an expressive content!
Of course. But having the *possibility* of having descriptive content
should make it form of speech.
Because you can use elements of a language the same way: being descriptive
and being pure nonsense.
For example: with letters I could do this:
grjwgrpwjgjpwjnnasjijgwrgrjgogjngnrwjnrwgwrgw
I bet this is as understandable just like:
<code>
string itos(const int n) {
static char buf[64];
char *e = buf + 64;
char *b = e;
int u = n;
int q;
if (n < 0)
u = -u;
do {
q = u / 10;
*--b = '0' + (u - q * 10);
u = q;
} while (u);
if (n < 0)
*--b = '-';
return string(b, e - b);
}
</code>
Or with words I could do this:
The red car talked to the elderly cabin for getting married at a watery grave
common to all mountaineering rabbit breeders in Utah.
Wowie...very descriptive.
So I think code and language can be equivalent.
Or yet another analogy:
Take a game of chess. For a non-clubplayer, it's just a board with some
silly figures on top. But for a player, chess is art, science, and
more exciting than the latest Stephen King novel.
Does code need to be understood by everyone in order to be descriptive
and be a form of art? Like a game of chess, I think not.
There is beauty in the line "while ((*d++ = *c++));", you just need
to be familiar with C idioms to enjoy it.
Okay, enough blah blah,
- Chris
Christian Loth
Project 'Gidayu' at http://gidayu.mud.de
Well, considering all the stereotypes that
float around here in good 'ole Europe, the
USA are the home of the brave and the fortress
of freedom. Strange now, that at least in
Redmond, it has turned into the home of
cowards that cover before marketing people
and of slaves forced to constantly repeat
marketing nonsense.
At least from an old-fashioned european point
of view, there is no better way to innovate
than to have great brainstorming.
Ah well, thank god I'm not redmondian-american.
- Chris
PS: no offense against the non-redmondian part
of the USA;)
Christian Loth
Project 'Gidayu' at http://gidayu.mud.de
Slashdot Mirror
Hello all,
Code can, by itself, convey a meaning, which in times of object oriented
programming doesn't need to be functional but is descriptive. For example,
if you program a game a couple of lines like:
<code>
Player antagonist;
Player protagonist;
protagonist.Name("Chuck the Sherriff");
antagonist.Name("Eddie Rodriguez");
protagonist.meets(antagonist);
antagonist.readyWeapon("colt");
protagonist.duckCover("wall");
antagonist.shoot(protagonist);
if (antagonist.hitsTarget(protagonist)) {
protagonist.takeDamage(antagonist.Shot());
} else {
protagonist.readyWeapon("shotgun");
}
</code>
Would not be uncommen and even be quite possible. It is even understandable
by non-programmers.
Now lets have a look at this:
And finally Chuck the Sherriff met his nemesis, Eddie Rodriguez. With
an arrogant smirk however, Eddie draws his Colt and aims at Chuck.
Chuck recognized this at once, and jumped straight behind a wall.
The shot echoed through the emtpy streets. Then there was silence?
Has chuck been hit? Was he laying injured behind the wall where he
ducked for cover? No! With his shotgun in his hand, he jumped back up
and now threatened Eddie.
I admit I'm not much of a writer but you should
get the point. Quite similar isn't it?
One could argue now: this code is constructed! But normally code has not
such an expressive content!
Of course. But having the *possibility* of having descriptive content
should make it form of speech.
Because you can use elements of a language the same way: being descriptive
and being pure nonsense.
For example: with letters I could do this:
grjwgrpwjgjpwjnnasjijgwrgrjgogjngnrwjnrwgwrgw
I bet this is as understandable just like:
<code>
string itos(const int n) {
static char buf[64];
char *e = buf + 64;
char *b = e;
int u = n;
int q;
if (n < 0)
u = -u;
do {
q = u / 10;
*--b = '0' + (u - q * 10);
u = q;
} while (u);
if (n < 0)
*--b = '-';
return string(b, e - b);
}
</code>
Or with words I could do this:
The red car talked to the elderly cabin for getting married at a watery grave
common to all mountaineering rabbit breeders in Utah.
Wowie...very descriptive.
So I think code and language can be equivalent.
Or yet another analogy:
Take a game of chess. For a non-clubplayer, it's just a board with some
silly figures on top. But for a player, chess is art, science, and
more exciting than the latest Stephen King novel.
Does code need to be understood by everyone in order to be descriptive
and be a form of art? Like a game of chess, I think not.
There is beauty in the line "while ((*d++ = *c++));", you just need
to be familiar with C idioms to enjoy it.
Okay, enough blah blah,
- Chris
Christian Loth
Project 'Gidayu' at http://gidayu.mud.de
Well, considering all the stereotypes that
;)
float around here in good 'ole Europe, the
USA are the home of the brave and the fortress
of freedom. Strange now, that at least in
Redmond, it has turned into the home of
cowards that cover before marketing people
and of slaves forced to constantly repeat
marketing nonsense.
At least from an old-fashioned european point
of view, there is no better way to innovate
than to have great brainstorming.
Ah well, thank god I'm not redmondian-american.
- Chris
PS: no offense against the non-redmondian part
of the USA
Christian Loth
Project 'Gidayu' at http://gidayu.mud.de