Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: using (ugh!  yetch!) assembler
Message-ID: <2621@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 88 17:56:38 GMT
References: <11701@steinmetz.ge.com> <933@esunix.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 27

In article <933@esunix.UUCP> sedwards@esunix.UUCP (Scott Edwards) writes:

>[I] ...think that the problem with the current HLL's is that they are not
>high enough, I would like a HLL that knows about trees, linked lists,
>etc. and how to deal with them, so I don't have to code all of the
>normal operations (insert, delete, etc) on them every time I use one.

I believe that this level of support exists already, although it's
widely scattered.

Typically, these routines only have to be written once, then put in the
library and documented.  Understanding the calling conventions is usually 
the hardest part.

The CLU language, for example, makes it easy enough to write new
operations in terms of already existing ones.

Recent implementations of the Scheme dialect of Lisp have provisions for
extending the syntax of the language.

Languages with inheritance (Smalltalk-80) usually don't even require
re-writing routines for new data types.
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA