Language design, was Re: Atomicity block

Joachim Durchholz <>
26 Feb 2004 01:03:18 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Atomicity block (2004-02-01)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)
Language design, was Re: Atomicity block (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Joachim Durchholz <>
Newsgroups: comp.distributed,comp.programming,comp.compilers
Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:03:18 -0500
Organization: Oberberg Online Infosysteme
References: 04-02-022 04-02-047 04-02-100 04-02-125
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:03:18 EST

John (our esteemed comp.compilers moderator) wrote:

> [The last interestingly innovative language was Simula in 1967, but
> that hasn't kept people from inventing new ones. -John]

Not entirely true. I see two new developments that postdate Simula:

1. Various constructs for initiating and controlling parallelism. (Given
Dijstra's talent for the unexpected and that Dijkstra published papers
on the issue as late as 1968, I assume that there were new ideas after
1967 *g*. Unfortunately, the various search machines that I tried were
too busy to check for sure.)

2. Simula had no multiple inheritance. Since Simula was the initial OO
language, I don't think there was another one.

3. There have been lots of advances in the area of combining various
forms of polymorphism and static typing.

4. There is a lot of innovation in the area of *integrating* paradigms.
As an example, take a look at:

Peter van Roy, Seif Haridi: Concepts, Techniques, and Models of
Computer Programming

A draft is available on
(it will go away shortly).

Well, at least that's what would be interestingly innovative for *me* -
YMMV :-)

Currently looking for a new job.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.