Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Changes in Programming Languages
Message-ID: <2453@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 17 Oct 89 12:30:50 GMT
References: <26600001@hollin>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 22

In article <26600001@hollin>, ds@hollin.prime.com writes:
> A Position Paper
> - -------- -----

> I believe that programming languages should change little once they are in
> widespread use, to encourage portability and programmer productivity.

The way I put it is "I can use almost anything if it will only STAY PUT".

There is a BSI/ISO committee currently working on a Prolog standard.
The standard was originally promised for the end of 1985.
The committee are busily trying to hack the thing around to suit their
own personal taste.  In the mean time, Prolog users have to make do
with what they can get.

I have been saying since 1984 that the appropriate thing to do with Prolog
is to take the language as it stands, freeze it, and then go on to do
something different.  People designing the next generation of logic
programming languages should not be hampered by compatibility with the
makeshifts of the current generation, and people trying to put the
current generation to practical use shouldn't have half-baked ideas about
the next foisted on them.