Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site hwcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!edcaad!hwcs!gilbert From: gilbert@hwcs.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Flaming being studied at CMU Message-ID: <194@hwcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 13:20:09 EDT Article-I.D.: hwcs.194 Posted: Sat Oct 20 13:20:09 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 00:40:39 EDT References: <160@grendel.UUCP> <422@vu44.UUCP> Organization: Computer Sci., Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 38 > This can also be noted from the fact that news contains an > awful lot of typos and incorrect syntactical constructions (this > sounds like one, I think), which is in fact quite funny, since > someone who speaks COBOL, LISP, APL and CSH can be expected to > be reasonable in English. Who are you trying to kid ? Programming languages have a minute vocabulary of reserved words coupled with a potentially infinite set of identifier symbols which nominally refer to the same class of object - a machine address. Their syntax, however imperfect in some cases, is better defined than that of natural languages which evolve within cultures. In some cases we do agree that a syntactic construction is 'correct'. Generally a construction is only 'preferred' by some authority or group. A classic example is the war which was waged against the split infinitive by self proclaimed authorities who adopted Latin as a syntactic paradigm for English. There are few shared and articulated formal rules on the syntax and semantics of 'correct' English. Natural language is characterised by its flexibility and lack of formality. Only the semantics of programming languages shares this feature of natural language and with luck this 'feature' is on the way out. English is a language that cannot be learned from a manual. Software documentation suggests that too many computing personnel have an atrocious command of English, a trait common in people with a scientific background. I say 'atrocious' as their writing can not be regarded as clear, well structured communication which involves and motivates the reader. It is not 'atrocious' on canonical grounds of syntax or absolute meaning. It is just poorly written . Don't ask for definitions of good written style, study examples ot it. Most people know it when they see it.