Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ut-sally!utah-cs!donn
From: donn@utah-cs.UUCP (Donn Seeley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Another \"D\" idea: RPN (and more)
Message-ID: <5318@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 6 Mar 88 08:12:16 GMT
References: <12088@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 21
Summary: Bravo!

Congratulations -- this was the funniest article I've read in weeks!

Actually, this whole 'D' discussion is the best example of how not to
do language design (or indeed any other kind of design) that I've ever
seen.  That's not to say I object to any particular language concept
that has been brought up -- although a C-like language with RPN syntax
is stretching it -- but this 'design' process is uninformed, undirected
and mostly unintelligible.  State your programming methodology first;
then justify your inclusion or exclusion of programming language
features based on how they interact with your methodology.  I hope
that anyone who submitted a programming language paper that exhibited
the same 'design principles' as 'D' would get a D for it, if not an F.

Of course, these 'D' proponents have been working from ANSI C's example,

Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    donn@cs.utah.edu
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    (801) 581-5668    utah-cs!donn

PS -- Can we move the 'D' discussion to comp.lang.misc?  Or at least
move the articles that aren't funny?
PPS -- Naturally, this brings up the issue of what should go into the
language 'F'...