From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:59:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: H/W v S/W encryption Constitutional challenge --The Next Generation
Message-ID: <199709012349.TAA07450@www.video-collage.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 06:05 PM 8/29/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
...
>    your suggestion of an interpretive language is a good idea if it
>    creates an easily understood body of code.  perl?  powerful, but
>    even more cryptic than C --sometimes I think perl is too powerful 
>    <g>.
>
...
What about Cobol.  I hated it and have fortunately forgotten everything that
I learned.  ( hated having to make sure I had to start on the right space
for this bit or that bit, it was my first experience with such constraints,
I had to learn on a hobbled editor/compiler, the for sale version which was
not included with the book cost more, I already had the computer theory
basics and so didn't need to learn about I/O basics, basic diagram of
computers, flow charts, etc., I hated trying to type in all that extra as I
am a firm believer in the use the letters until you run out of letters for
variable names school.)
What I do remember was that it was described to us, (the class), as being
designed so that it was an easy read.  If you chose your variable names
right, supposedly anyone could follow it.
The language is compiled which means that although it might be harder to
convince the judge that it is speach, it will run faster.
The language is well distributed, so is about equal to C and others in that
reguard.
The language was originally popular due to the DOD, which required a Cobol
compiler bwe available for every computer they bought for a while.  (Oh, the
history that you learn in Software Engineering Class.)  This last fact makes
it more of an insult to those who claim national security as the reason for
suppression.

Whatever the language, it would have to be well documented in the code so
that a layman could follow it easily enough.

If the language could be written in a scripting language designed for the
average computer user, all the better.

Could PGP5.0 be rewritten in Hypertalk for Hypercard for Macintosh?
That language was designed to be readable by anyone.  The program would be
as slow as molassis, ten times longer in the source, but still.

Merely my suggestion.  I like C as well, though I'm very rusty, having not
written anything of length since the end of the semester in which I took the
class, and then no more then two pages of source per assignment.