Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!lee
From: lee@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lee Carver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Perfect language features (Discussions of languages)
Summary: Smallest language must have conditionals
Message-ID: <960@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 88 17:31:15 GMT
References: <3928@ames.arpa> <2400001@otter.HP.COM>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 23

In article <2400001@otter.HP.COM>, sjmz@otter.HP.COM (Stefek Zaba) writes:
> After a while this gets REALLY tedious; "how do I simulate a WHILE
> loop in this one?  what's the syntax for conditionals?  You mean it DOESN'T
> support conditionals!? 

Rather then indenpendent small languages, how about nested small
langauges?   Then the smallest small languages supports only the
'standard' flow control operations - conditional, loop, call.
(by the way, has anybody else seen the lovely little proposal for
intermixed loop/conditional in latest TOPLAS?)

All the 'small languages' need to bring are special commands -
subroutines packages would work, but some extensible syntax would be
nice.

> Sorry, I want *one* language, with extensible syntax for special jobs.  I want
> it in *one* computing environment.
> ...
> And it's not just a hardened Programmer type like me ...

Us _hardended programmer types_ :-), do understand, that really, it will
never happen that there is _one_ language.  Sorry.  No easter bunny
either :-).