Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdcad!sun!quintus!pds From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages Message-ID: <928@quintus.UUCP> Date: 17 Jan 89 00:35:27 GMT References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com> <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1226@indetech.uucp> Sender: news@quintus.UUCP Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 19 In article eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >> Speaking of *obvious* examples, what isn't a B&D language? >C. C++. Lisp. Basic. Fortran. Any assembler. Gee, the last time I used C, the garbage collector didn't seem to work. Oh, you mean I'm BOUND to manage memory myself? I have to DICIPLINE myself to make sure I free memory I'm not using anymore? I think we need a narrower definition of B&D. Like, maybe, "a language which doesn't allow the programmer to do everything the hardware allows." Note that this definition factors in the hardware. All the langauges you mention, except assembler, would be B&D on a vector processor. APL might be a better choice on such an architecture. A while back, someone built a machine designed to do combinator reduction. On such a machine, SASL would be a good choice; on a 680x0, SASL would be pretty far from the hardware. -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ..!sun!quintus!pds