Xref: utzoo comp.misc:2281 comp.lang.misc:1460
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Why FORTRAN
Message-ID: <19979@think.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 88 21:25:32 GMT
References: <773@virginia.acc.virginia.edu> <753@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: usenet@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@fafnir.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 25
Keywords: FORTRAN, Why?

In article <753@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <773@virginia.acc.virginia.edu>, mlj8e@dale.acc.Virginia.EDU (Michael L. Johnson) writes:
>>    1) The computer language must be universal.
>For a language to be universal, it must be able to handle all instructions,
>data types, operations, pseudo-operations, print statement formats, etc., which
>are desired.  This is impossible, hence the language must allow the addition
>of objects unforeseen by the designer.

I think you are using a different definition of "universal" than the
original author.  I interpreted his criterion to mean that the
language must be available on all computers that his application is
likely to be run on.

I'm not sure where your definition of "universal" comes from.  At
first I thought you might be using it as in "Universal Turing
Machine", intending it to mean a language that can be used to compute
anything that is computable.  However, since most popular languages
are Turing-equivalent, and a Turing Machine is universal, this must
not be what you mean.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
uunet!think!barmar