OSNews

ylai wrote:>>>>>>>>
I think you forgot what I have wrote at this point. It certainly has advantages for people programming intermixed C with another language. But again, you resort here to the "inverse problem", and avoids the issue that it is simlply not a technical reason not to use the C escape sequence.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Let's just leave it at this: HLA is *not* C. As pointed out already, most of the HLL-like syntax were derived from the Algol branch of the language tree rather than the C branch. C's use of apostrophes and quotes to differentiate strings and characters is a *good* thing, IMO, but C's escape sequences are not (again, IMO). Therefore, while I chose to adopt the C scheme of quotes and apostrophes, I chose to adopt the Pascal/Modula-2/Ada/etc. approach to embedding quotes within strings and the traditional *assembly language* way of embedded non-graphic symbols in HLA strings.

There are many things in HLA that aren't particularly convenient for C programmers. If they don't like it and they don't want to use HLA because it doesn't support C escape sequences in character strings, they can always use Gas, which does.

In general, C is not a good syntax to base a language upon if you're interested in producing a language that makes it easy to write readable code. Given that assembly language has a lot working against it in the readability department anyway, it's better *not* to adopt syntax from some language if there is a better syntax available.

Now we can argue all day long about whether C escape sequences are more readable than the approach HLA takes. However, having taught Assembly, Pascal, C, C++, and Ada at the university level for over ten years, I've got a pretty good feeling about what students find readable, and let me tell you that the average student finds C escape sequences confusing. Just my observation; but sufficient to convince me *not* to use that scheme in HLA.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde