Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!gaynor From: gaynor@paul.rutgers.edu (Silver) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The Universal Language (Was Re: Efficient Fortran) Message-ID: Date: 14 Aug 90 11:41:58 GMT References: <1990Aug10.131143.8898@canterbury.ac.nz> <59798@lanl.gov> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 23 jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > Being dynamically redefinable is not necessarily a bad idea. However, it > doesn't bring you closer to the concept of a universal language. In fact, it > takes you further from it. If you can dynamically redefine a language, what > you _really_ get is a _whole_lot_ of incompatible dialects at various sites > (or even - from one person to the next). That's a problem in distribution, not definition... The programmer community can collectively cut their throats by witholding packages, but that's a different issue altogether. I'm suggesting a language which is a common base, extendable with a library of packages which provide various interesting linguistic features. The intended result is an environment in which everything is generally the same unless requested otherwise. Symbols and comments don't change shape unless you do something unusual. A program which requires immutable data looks just like one that doesn't. Infix, prefix, and postfix notations are available; only one is default, however, it doesn't matter which. Somebody cut me down to size, I just reread the paragraph above and it doesn't even seem totally off the wall! (Um, Mark, I shaved yesterday, so you'll have to try another tack. :^) Regards, [Ag] gaynor@paul.rutgers.edu