Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Need input on designing a new language
Message-ID: <1990Jun1.195053.5863@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 1 Jun 90 19:50:53 GMT
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 22
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
In-Reply-To: <1990May31.160617.2881@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>

>Thats the heart of my problem, simple to implement. It would be easier for
>me if I forced the user, programmer, to declare all the procedures before the
>function body occurs...

You have to decide where your priorities lie:  simpler implementation, or
simpler use.  Implementation is definitely simpler if you know the details
about a procedure before you have to compile a call to it.  However, my
experience is that programmers overwhelmingly prefer to write the entire
procedure -- declarations and body -- in one piece, and see no reason why
they should have to contort their code for the compiler's convenience.
They put up with it in most current languages, but they don't like it.

Compilers do random-access lookups much better than humans do.  If the
compiler needs information from line 245 to compile line 34, it should
go get it, not require the programmer to do so.

                                    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{spdcc | ima | lotus}!esegue.  Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.
Please send responses to the author of the message, not the poster.