>>38
but I am sensing a deep disagreement on the readability topic already.
My ideally-readable language would (semantically) be a cross between Scheme and CL+CLOS, and (syntactically) a cross between Lisp and FIOC (à la sweet-expressions). I find C fairly readable, but not very powerful (whereas ,,power'' is defined as how much you have to hammer your keyboard to implement the average
something; proper macros are the ultimate power-enhancing feature). I find Python fairly readable as well, and a bit more powerful (thanks to
lambdas). I find functional code very readable on average (with the notable exception being Haskell, which I abhor).
readability metrics
Here's a way to test it: for every language, pick the best professors+textbook and teach the language to a large group of uninitiated CS students for eight months. Then get an
expert programmer to implement a few algorithms (FizzBuzz
TM, qsort,
FIBONACCI BUTT SORT, XML parser, mini HTTP server, etc.) in that language. Strip all the comments from the source and leave only the function/variable names. Now ask the students to reverse-engineer the source code and to explain exactly how each function/unit-of-code works and how it fits in the grand scheme of things; mark the submitted assignments and take the average -- this will quantify the language's readability.