Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
From: TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Another \"D\" idea: RPN (and more)
Message-ID: <12088@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 2 Mar 88 23:30:36 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 21

I'm really excited about the idea of a "D" programming language. Let me
make a suggest or two:

I think that the one thing that really detracts from C is the fact that it
isn't RPN.  Reverse-polish-notation has a lot of benefits.  First of all,
we'd get the support of all the HP calculator lovers, all the FORTH users,
and compiler writers would find it easier to write compilers since RPN is
easier to parse.

Another thing that "D" should have... actually not have, is pointers. At
least 85% of the problems discussed here on Info-C are people who have
some problem with confusion about pointers.  Removing pointers would solve
this whole set of problems.

Instead of pointers, we should have dynamic links.  These would be just
like pointers but totally different.  Dynamic links will hold the address
of what they are pointing to.  With such a simple definition like this,
nobody will get confused.

  Tom Limoncelli | Drew U/Box 1060/Madison NJ 07940 | tlimonce@drew.BITNET
      Disclaimer: These are my views, not my employer or Drew Univesity
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------