|Atomicity block firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-01)|
|Re: Atomicity block email@example.com (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)|
|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:||Joachim Durchholz <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|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|
|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
A draft is available on http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/book.html
(it will go away shortly).
Well, at least that's what would be interestingly innovative for *me* -
Currently looking for a new job.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.