Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: HLLs vs asm (was Re: portable "asm") Message-ID: <4172@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Mar 88 23:21:02 GMT References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <1592@ogcvax.UUCP> <1600@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 49 Doug, sorry to put my comments as a followup to your article, but Herman Rubin's article has expired here. In article <1600@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >In article cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >>There are two different aims of a programming language. One is the description >>of the procedure. For this, the current languages are totally inadequate. So is mathematics. That is why most problems are described in the natural languages (I think that is the term) such as English, German, etc. Herman, if you think that mathematics is such a great descriptive language, please send me a description of limit theory using only mathematical symbols :-) :-). No English (or other natural languages) allowed!! :-) >>It is necessary to restrict portability. Semi-portability >>may still be desirable. Well, if you want me to help you prototype your language (see below), you had better provide me with the same hardware that everyone else is using. My vote is for a Cray Y-MP :-) :-)! >>In article <1592@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >>> If you think you really can do better than ``C'' or some other successful >>> language, *** DO IT ***. > >>If you provide me with the necessary programmers, I will. > >Here I am. If you come up with a language description sufficiently precise >that it can be implemented, I'll be happy to produce a working compiler. Me, too. However, you (Herman Rubin) must convince me that you language is 'better' than what we currently have. It shouldn't be all that hard to code the prototype compiler for your language. However, one of my definitions of a 'good' general-purpose computer language is the ability to write a compiler for itself in it. Since you are the only one who knows your language, you are the only one who can write the final compiler. When you provide us with FORMAL specifications of your language (such as the C reference manual in the K&R C book), then you can worry about getting programmers to help you code it. When you have something that resembles a language definition and specification, instead of a mish-mash of contradictory ideas, come back to the net and impress us. Until then, stop all this unconstructive criticism on current languages and start working on your language design!! -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_