Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!goer From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Survey Results : Perl vs Icon vs .... (> 500 lines) Message-ID: <1991Apr8.201559.6408@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 20:15:59 GMT References: <3252@charon.cwi.nl> <1991Apr3.151153.3447@midway.uchicago.edu> <3282@charon.cwi.nl> Sender: goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) Distribution: comp Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 32 In article <3282@charon.cwi.nl> guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) writes: >I don't really want to engage in "mine is longer than yours" contests, >but just for the record: Python is out only two months now and has >already been ported to all of the Unix platforms you mention (plus >hpux) and some of the micro ones (Mac, MS-DOS, Atari ST). That's good news. >Disclaimer: maybe I seem stubborn on this point, but I have worked on >a language project where OS independence was considered so important >that the language didn't even have a primitive to open a file and read >data from it within a program. The language didn't become a terrible >success, even though it had other properties that made it a big leap >forward from other languages... You're not being overly stubborn. One of the few complaints I see about Icon is that it doesn't let you get close enough to the operating sys to do anything resembling a commercially viable production piece of software. In fact, Icon does let you do this, but only by extending the run-time system in nonportable ways. Apparently linking C functions will be much easier once the compiler comes into use. There is still some question, though, about how large compiled executables will be. I have not looked into Python, and it seems that this ought to be added to my list of things to do. -Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu) -- -Richard L. Goerwitz goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer