|Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-01)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (Thad Smith) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (2004-02-08)|
|Re: Atomicity block K.Hagan@thermoteknix.co.uk (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)|
|Re: Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)|
|Language design, was Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)|
|From:||"Ken Hagan" <K.Hagan@thermoteknix.co.uk>|
|Date:||12 Feb 2004 11:00:50 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||12 Feb 2004 11:00:50 EST|
Les Cargill wrote:
> Ada has keywords for atomicity, but Ada didn't do very well in the
> marketplace. Shame, it's a nice system.
Perhaps someone should make Ada look like C. It can't be that
hard, since it is only syntax. (I'm thinking of a full compiler
like Cfront, though a pre-processor might be sufficient to get
(You know the sort of thing: curly braces, up-its-own-backside
declaration syntax, overload the angle brackets for generics.)
A "C-like syntax" certainly worked for Java (and C++ before it).
Of course, you'd have to give it a new name, such as Ada++, or
else you'd never be able to market it to the great unwashed.
(No smiley. It was borderline, but on balance I think this is a
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.