Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!lth.se!newsuser
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: PL inflation (was: ap)
Message-ID: <1991Jun12.223042.18281@lth.se>
Date: 12 Jun 91 22:30:42 GMT
References: <4137@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server)
Reply-To: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Lines: 24

In article <4137@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>Although I don't want to sound _too_ critical, I think the designers
>of Python and Perl have done a disservice to us by developing new
>languages with nothing particular to recomend them over other
>languages that are already widely available and well known.  The only
>effect these languages will have is to further fracture the progamming
>community.

I indeed think this is too critical. What harm does it make? Especially for
a scripting language (which is interpreted)? 

>I strongly believe that the proper way to do language design is to
>modify existing languages, being sensitive to the reactions of the
>larger community and not relying too heavily on personal taste.  At
>very few points in language developement is it wise to throw out all
>existing frameworks and produce a completely new language.

Then for example Pascal would never have been made. Or C, for that matter.
Or maybe even Scheme?

Bengt Larsson.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden
Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se             SUNET:    TYCHE::BENGT_L