Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!decuac!decatl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The Universal Language (Was Re: Efficient Fortran) Message-ID: Date: 8 Aug 90 15:12:57 GMT References: <24013@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 23 In-Reply-To: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu's message of 8 Aug 90 05:07:54 GMT In article <24011@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: In fact, we may well have to loose the preconception that a language must have a single, unambiguous definition. I have problems with this. Fortunately, Mr. Gudeman expresses them quite adequately for me in article <24013@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>: But as a practical matter I think you really want to standardize as much as possible, and include in the definition all of the useful sorts of notations. Otherwise this ``universal language'' is going to have huge numbers of dialects, all incomprehensible to the larger community. In both cases, Mr. Gudeman could be describing LISP. It's grown and changed over time. While such a system could well provide a universal language, the current state of the world suggests that such a system isn't an improvement over a multitude of special purpose languages.