Re: 6502 illegal opcodes questions

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> It isn't about beauty--it's about clarity.  And there are *huge*
> payoffs in adopting a standard format for programs--as, indeed,
> most serious projects do.
>
> Not everyone likes to spell words the same way, either, but we
> don't care what they think--the convention is king.
>
> With proper rules, a program's beauty when expressed in a language
> is *precisely* its evident function.
>
> BTW, programmers shouldn't choose names they "like", either.  Naming
> should all be within a simple, rigid framework, so that the semantics
> of any name are expressed by the identifier.
>
> The lack of widespread adoption of such a convention is a measure of
> the immaturity of programming as a discipline.

Oh I completely agree. I just think we're a fair number of years away
yet from that level of discipline. A pity.

I hope that eventually we'll be dealing with very high abstraction
levels, perhaps languages with its own symbology rather than being
forced into being expressed in roman character sets, etc. There is a
long, long way to go before such ideals are realised though.
Fortunately, some people are beginning to see the light.

Matt