Re: succinctness = power

[Paul Graham <address@hidden>]

--Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote:
> I disagree that succinctness or terseness is a good property of a
> language. When I read an expression or statement, I don't want to have
> to puzzle it out. I want the meaning to be obvious. Verbiage decreases
> comprehension, but so can terseness.

Imagine two programs, one written in the high level language of
your choice, and the other the object code generated by a 
compiler fed the first as input.  Which do you have to puzzle
out?  That's what I mean by succinctness being a good property
of a language.

> Also, repetition can increase a program's robustness. We humans like to
> approach problems in different ways, and if all those ways lead to the
> same answer, then I at least, have a greater confidence in the solution.
> The requirement that one must declare the type of a variable before any
> use is an example of a beneficial repetition.

It's also an additional opportunity to make an error, e.g. 
by mistyping the variable name or giving it the wrong type.

And even if you like this sort of thing, all you need is
to allow declarations, not to require them.  I think as
a general rule, succinct languages will allow you to
introduce as much repetition as you like.  They just leave
the choice up to you.