Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!varese.UUCP!kjj
From: kjj@varese.UUCP (Kevin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone want to design a language?
Message-ID: <12515@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 19 Feb 90 22:53:02 GMT
References: <22569:05:10:24@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <12507@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> <4623:05:31:06@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: kjj@varese.UUCP (Kevin Johnson)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 73

In article <4623:05:31:06@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <12507@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> kjj@varese.UUCP (Kevin Johnson) writes:
>> Rhetorical question: Aren't you talking about C++?
>Of course not. C++ isn't even close to perfect.
>Isn't there some change you'd like to make to C++ so that you'd like
>programming even better than you do now? Fine, say so. Then iterate.
>Hopefully almost everyone's wishes will be synthesized into this new,
>still-to-be-named language. (Now there's a name: FOO. Naaah, people
>might remember what foo stands for, and lots of young urban CS types
>will think it stands for something object oriented.)

I don't want to get in a flaming war - but that's an awfully long response
to a rhetorical question :-)
Oh well, that's what I get for not putting on a smily face when I ask a
rhetorical question :-|

>> Semi-rhetorical question: What would be this language's intended use?
>Similar to C. It will have the ``low-level'' features of C so that
>it's appropriate for systems programming, but there's no particular
>focus. (I use UNIX C for complex numerical programming, so I may be
>biased.)

>> 1. How about string operators.
>> 	I hate handling allocing of space for something silly like strings...
>This is mainly a library problem (though a good syntax helps).

A good syntax is the crux of the biscuit (to quote a favorite Zappaism).

>> 2. Ability to dynamically define new operators
>Expand. What exactly do you want? We're not talking p-code, you know.
>Are you looking for something that can't be implemented on top of the
>language?

I realize 'We're not talking p-code'...
How about something similar in flavor to OO methods.
It doesn't have to be as lean and mean as the core operators, but having
the ability to do it would be extremely useful...
BTW, doesn't this smells like the string-operator point(s) brought up
earlier.  A good syntax helps...

>> 3. Ability to use existing C libraries and headers.
>At least to interface with the loader the same as other languages. As
>for headers: one of the first standard applications will be a program to
>convert C function prototypes to this language. (Having the same macro
>processing is too much to ask, because C's macro processor is so
>limited. But most libraries do fine with just the function interface.)

I agree.

>> 	Seriously, I would consider the ability to link in existing
>> 	libraries, one way or another, an absolute must.
>I agree.

Well, now that that's over...
Some of the other replies to your original article mentioned a language
with semi-colons, with indentation providing the information about
loop bodies, etc...  HERE HERE!  This feature is extremely cheap
to provide.

In reference to article <4489:05:14:19@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>:

In general you have my vote (for what it's worth) on your responses
in the article.  The following items cause me to input:

>Is there anyone out there who really wouldn't like loop ...
>end/endloop/pool, etc.?
My own personnal feeling is that they are contrary to human nature.
Well, maybe not that bad, but... (maybe)

>Anyway, I favor a syntax that doesn't depend on lines or indentation:
>otherwise it's too easy to make syntax errors.

The same can, most definitely, be said of the trad C form...