Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Can Turing survive?
Message-ID: <2658@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 7 Jan 89 00:03:13 GMT
References: <117400001@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 20

I just read the turing article. I don't know... the syntax is full of little
arbitrary glitches (for example, using a token for the last character of a
string that can't be stored anywhere), the seperate compilation handling
is pretty hairy (if submodule A accesses something in a program that isn't
passed to it, that program has to be available when the module is compiled),
and the I/O handling is built in to the language (the language is otherwise
so nice, and perfectly capable of providing the capabilities in a standard
library... just as 'C', Modula, and so on do).

I got the impression of a more advanced teaching language, rather than a
replacement for Modula, 'C', and so on... It's got a lot of nice ideas,
but doesn't hang together all that well.

I, for one, would much rather have an efficient implementation of ICON. Now
that's a breakthrough language.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.