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.