|Desrired Language Features firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-10-02)|
|Re: Desired Language Features email@example.com (1993-10-04)|
|Re: Desired Language Features firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-10-06)|
|Re: Desired Language Features email@example.com (1993-10-19)|
|Re: Desired Language Features firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-10-20)|
|From:||email@example.com (Henry Spencer)|
|Organization:||U of Toronto Zoology|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Oct 1993 19:24:53 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Rene Dekker) writes:
>Don't get me wrong, your ideas certainly make sense. But take under
>consideration that designing a new language is not something to think
>lightly about. It is not a matter of `adding a few features.' ...
>The world is not waiting for yet another language.
To elaborate on this a bit:
Designing a language is a lot of work -- much harder than it looks. And
then you have to think about implementing it. And *then* you have to
think about whether anyone but you will ever use it.
There is little chance of your language seeing substantial use unless it
offers some major advantage over existing languages. A few little useful
extras are not enough to justify changing to a new language. The
advantage has to be large. You are not going to get a large advantage by
fixing up details, even if they do need fixing badly.
Note also that the main thrust of the original posting -- exception
handling -- is already addressed by an increasing number of languages,
including Ada, Modula 3, and the very latest versions of C++. If all you
want is more convenience for your own work, you are unquestionably better
off with one of these.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology, email@example.com utzoo!henry
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.