"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute"
-- Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 1984.
It's possible to write English with bad structure, clumsy metaphors, obscure vocabulary, and non-non-non-usual idiosyncrasies. And other people might be technically capable of understanding it if they really want to, and try hard enough.
After all, the language elements are there and well-defined, so why would anyone ever complain about "bad" writing?
(Out of curiosity, do you object to people who say the use of "goto" should be seriously restricted, or even prohibited, in most programs? Do you specifically use gotos to make the point that they can still be be useful and productive? The language element is there and well-defined.)
I've used a goto in production code twice in >30 years. In both cases it was the right thing to do, and it had more to do with hardware elements and mission assurance than with software engineering.
-- Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 1984.
It's possible to write English with bad structure, clumsy metaphors, obscure vocabulary, and non-non-non-usual idiosyncrasies. And other people might be technically capable of understanding it if they really want to, and try hard enough.
After all, the language elements are there and well-defined, so why would anyone ever complain about "bad" writing?
(Out of curiosity, do you object to people who say the use of "goto" should be seriously restricted, or even prohibited, in most programs? Do you specifically use gotos to make the point that they can still be be useful and productive? The language element is there and well-defined.)