[Tim]
> *everything* in Parrot is spelled out. For example, it's neither
> "def xyz():" nor "sub xyz {", but "subroutine_definition xyz():"
> in Parrot.
[Andrew Dalke]
> I've been doing some user studies here. I've found that
> most people don't understand the _, () and : characters.
> Thus, in my forthcoming article for http://www.parrotmag.com/
> (in press) I propose function definition really be spelled
>
> subroutine definition xyz take no arguments and works this way
>
> I've found a 29.592436% improvement in understanding (R=0.1931)
> with a 99.432% fewer errors in code writing (R=0.911) - so
> long as a suitable IDE was used. Tests used edlin from
> PC-DOS 2.01 (IBM Corporation), which most subjects found
> "intuitively easy" and "a pleasure to use".)
>
> Researchers interested in prepublication access to the
> anonymized data can contact our corporate legal offices
> for a release license. (Credited universities only.)
Well I'll be damned! Guido and Larry worried over the data all day, and
couldn't find a single flaw in your methodology or analysis. Of course
they're abandoning the Parrot project as a result -- it's far too late to
make any changes to the language (alpha testers already have dozens of lines
of partly working Parrot code), and neither of them wants to be associated
with yet another animal language that turns out to be a turkey.
Damn. We were gonna get soooooooo rich off of this ...
stuck-with-a-whole-room-full-of-vanity-parrot-credit-cards-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4